A  HANDBOOK 

OF  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE 

BY  EDMUND  VON  MACH 


UCSB  LIBRARY 


RELIEF   FROM    ARA    PACIS. 


A   HANDBOOK 


OF 


Greek  and  Roman  Sculpture 


BY 


EDMUND    VON    MACH,  PH.  D. 

Author    of    "  Greek    Sculpture :    Its    Spirit    and    Principles," 
"  Outlines  of  the  History  of  Painting,"  etc. 


To  Accompany  a  Collection  of  Reproductions  of 
Greek  and   Roman  Sculpture 

(THE   UNIVERSITY   PRINTS) 


BOSTON 

BUREAU  OF  UNIVERSITY  TRAVEL 
1905 


COPYRIGHT,   1905 

BY 
EDMUND    VON    MACH 


TO 

CHARLES    ELIOT    NORTON 

LOVER    OF    BEAUTY 
INSPIRER    OF    MEN 

THIS    BOOK 
IS    DEDICATED 


CONTENTS. 


PART  PAGE 

I.  Mycenaean  Age      ......  i 

II.  Archaic  Sculpture           .         .         .         .         .  5 

III.  Transitional  Period        .....  60 

IV.  Fifth  Century 102 

V.  Fourth  Century 181 

VI.     Hellenistic  Period          .         .         .         .         .270 

VII.     Graeco-Roman,  Eclectic  and  Imitative  Sculpt- 
ure      .  .  345 

VIII.     EtruS'can  and  Roman  National  Sculpture       .     358 
IX.     Grave  Reliefs         ......     392 

X.     Portraits         .......     400 

XI.     Heads 402 

APPENDIX. 

List  of  Plates  According  to  Numbers    .          i 
List  of  Plates  According  to  Places         .          xxxii 
Chronological  List  of  Important  Artists          xxxv 
Bibliography  .         .         .         .         .          xxxvii 

Archaeological  Publications  of  Importance     xliii 
Index  xlvi 


PREFACE. 


This  collection  offers,  on  five  hundred  plates  and  forty- 
five  text  illustrations,  the  most  important  remains  of  Greek 
and  Roman  sculpture.  Supplementary  collections  may  be 
issued  in  the  future  as  they  become  necessary  and  are 
asked  for  by  those  who  use  this  series. 

The  plates  have  been  made  from  original  photographs 
especially  imported  by  the  Bureau  of  University  Travel. 
In  a  few  cases,  where  original  photographs  were  inaccessi- 
ble or  where  better  results  could  be  obtained  from  large 
plates  or  photographs  in  the  possession  of  Harvard  Univer- 
sity, this  has  been  done,  and  thanks  are  due  to  the  proper 
authorities  for  the  permission  to  use  them.  A  small  num- 
ber of  plates  are  copied  from  books.  The  plates  are  not 
"retouched."  Where  the  backgrounds  seem  to  have  been 
painted  black  this  is  the  defect  of  the  original  photograph. 

In  the  classification  the  editor  has  aimed  at  clearness, 
believing  to  serve  the  student  best  by  enabling  him  to  find 
instantly  the  desired  pictures.  He  has,  therefore,  often 
deviated  from  the  general  rule  of  giving  in  the  several 
groups,  first  the  statues  of  men,  then  those  of  women, 
and  finally  the  reliefs  and  other  temple  sculptures.  In 
the  fifth-century  group,  for  instance,  the  individual  artists 
have  been  treated  separately.  In  the  sub-divisions,  when- 
ever possible,  the  alphabetical  order  has  been  followed. 
Where  two  or  more  pictures  are  given  on  one  plate,  the 
most  important  one  has  been  printed  in  its  proper  place  in 

vii 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

the  catalogue,  while  a  reference  to  the  other  has  been 
inserted  where  it  would  naturally  belong.  Thus  Plate  92 
contains  one  metope  from  the  temple  of  Zeus  in  Olympia 
and  one  from  the  Theseion  in  Athens.  A  reference  to  the 
latter  appears  after  Plate  130.  Statues  which  are  popularly 
known  by  wrong  names  are  listed  under  these  names  as, 
for  instance,  the  so-called  Ilioneus,  Plate  227;  but  a  note  is 
attached  to  it  in  the  catalogue  or  printed  in  the  discussion 
of  the  statue  in  the  Handbook.  Doubtful  or  erroneous, 
although  popular,  names  are  printed  in  quotation  marks. 

Part  Ten — Portraits — is  the  least  complete  part  of  the 
collection,  especially  as  regards  Roman  portraits.  This 
had  to  be  so,  because  the  number  of  extant  Roman  por- 5 
traits  is  so  large  that  even  a  fair  selection  from  them 
would  have  been  out  of  proportion  to  the  other  parts  of 
the  book.  No  attempt,  therefore,  has  been  made  to  give 
portraits  of  all  men  of  note.  The  aim  rather  has  been 
to  select  statues  and  busts  which  illustrate  the  develop- 
ment of  portrait-sculpture,  irrespective  of  the  persons 
portrayed. 

In  Part  Eleven — Heads — the  specialist  may  miss  some 
favorite  specimens,  but  here  again  the  material  from  which 
to  draw  is  so  large  that  a  rigid  sifting  process  became 
necessary.  The  principle  followed  was  similar  to  that 
adopted  for  Part  Ten.  Heads  were  included  in  the  list 
when  they  illustrated  the  development  of  sculpture,  and 
often  excluded,  although  with  considerable  regret,  when 
their  chief  claim  to  attention  was  based  on  their  pleasing 
appearance. 

No  special  group  has  been  given  to  votive  offerings 
because  they  were,  in  antiquity,  rarely  made  by  the  great 
artists  themselves  and  could,  therefore,  be  more  easily 


PREFACE,  IX 

spared  from  this  collection  than  other  monuments.     A  few 
of  them  are  listed  as  reliefs  in  the  several  periods. 

The  Handbook  offers  a  general  introduction  to  the  study 
of  the  monuments.  The  necessity  of  treating  them  sepa- 
rately precluded  the  systematic  discussion  of  principles,  for 
which  the  author  has  been  obliged  to  refer  the  readers  to 
his  earlier  book — Greek  Sculpture,  Its  Spirit  and  Principles. 
The  limited  space  which  could  be  given  to  the  several 
statues  and  reliefs  made  it  necessary  to  state  facts  as  they 
presented  themselves  to  the  author  without  in  every  case 
adducing  the  proofs  on  which  they  depend.  In  small 
type,  therefore,  references  to  the  most  important  books  or 
articles  in  learned  journals  are  given.  These  references 
are  not  complete,  because  that  would  have  been  a  waste  of 
time  and  space.  They  are  intended  as  introductions  to 
the  fuller  bibliography  of  given  subjects,  the  books  and 
articles  mentioned  containing  references  to  other  publica- 
tions. No  references  are  made  to  the  ordinary  textbooks,1 
because  their  complete  indexes  enable  the  reader  to  find 
easily  the  desired  information. 

In  all  cases  the  author  has  intended  to  bring  the  bib- 
liography up  to  date,  so  that,  in  future,  by  collecting 
material  from  the  excellent  "Archaeological  News"  and 
"Archaeological  Discussions"  of  the  American  Journal  of 
Archeology,  the  users  of  this  Handbook  will  always  be 
abreast  of  the  times. 

Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads  (Parts  Ten,  Eleven 
and  Twelve)  could  not  be  treated  with  the  same  attention 
to  details  as  the  other  monuments,  without  making  the 

1  They  are  included  in  the  general  bibliography  on  p.  xxxv. 


X  PREFACE. 

Handbook  too  large  to  serve  its  purpose.  The  author  was, 
therefore,  obliged  to  confine  his  remarks  in  these  parts  to 
the  barest  outlines  of  the  subjects,  trusting  that  he  may  at 
some  future  time  find  the  opportunity  of  treating  them 
according  to  their  deserts. 

The  author  has  refrained  as  much  as  possible  from  refut- 
ing erroneous  views.  Only  when  such  views  have  gained 
currency  in  popular  books  has  he  felt  obliged  to  attack 
them  and  to  show  their  errors. 

Much  attention  has  been  given  to  accurate  statements 
of  the  provenience  and  the  restorations  of  the  monuments, 
and  with  unfailing  persistence  the  neglect  of  museum 
authorities  to  publish  them  has  been  noted. 

In  the  case  of  marble  statues,  most  recent  books  state 
the  kind  of  marble  of  which  the  statues  were  made,  Pen- 
telic,  Parian,  Carrara,  etc.,  basing  their  remarks  on  the 
investigations  of  Lepsius.  The  author  has  often  had  occa- 
sion to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  these  investigations,  and  has, 
therefore,  refrained  from  quoting  them.  He  is  strength- 
ened in  his  view  by  the  opinion  of  modern  geologists, 
who  believe  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  definitely  from 
which  quarry  a  piece  of  marble  has  been  taken. 

One  of  the  most  pleasant  duties  of  the  author  is  to 
express  his  appreciation  of  the  enthusiasm  of  Professor 
H.  H.  Powers,  the  president  of  the  Bureau  of  University 
Travel,  whose  liberality  has  made  the  publication  of  this 
collection  possible.  The  assistance  of  Miss  Minnie  May 
and  Mr.  Rossiter  Howard,  with  their  cheerful  attention  to 
details,  has  been  invaluable  and  a  source  of  great  personal 
satisfaction. 

The  author  finally  wishes  to  record  his  deep  sense  of 
gratitude  to  the  man,  whose  name  by  permission  appears 


PREFACE.  XI 

on  the  dedication  page,  and  who  for  many  years  has 
boldly  fought  the  battle  of  spirit  against  matter.  Recently 
men  have  dared  to  affirm  that  even  art  should  be  studied 
"scientifically,"  with  the  spirit  left  out.  May  the  name  of 
Charles  Eliot  Norton  preserve  the  reader  from  this  fallacy! 

EDMUND  VON  MACH. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS. 

February,  1905. 


HANDBOOK   OF 
Greek   and   Roman   Sculpture, 


PART  ONE. 


The  Mycenaean1  Age. 


The  recent  discoveries  in  Crete,  which  promise  to  shed  new 
light  on  the  civilization  generally  called  Mycenaean,  are  of 
such  far-reaching  importance  that  a  thorough  discussion  of 
Mycenaean  art  seems  ill-advised  before  all  their  results  are 
published.  But  so  busy  are  the  excavators  in  unearthing  new 
monuments  that  they  have  at  present  little  time  for  collecting 
their  material  in  exhaustive  treatises. 

Most  historians  accept  as  true  the  Greek  tradition  of  a 
Dorian  invasion,  dating  it  approximately  from  noo  B.  C.  to 
1000  B.  C.  This  event,  they  believe,  marks  the  end  of  a 
civilization  of  great  splendor,  distinguished  by  an  unfailing 
love  of  the  beautiful. 

The  first  rich  finds 2  of  its  art  were  excavated  on  the  citadel 
of  Mykenai  in  1876,  and  came  as  a  surprise,  because  scholars 
then  believed  that  the  Greeks  before  the  seventh  century, 

1  This  is  the  accepted  spelling.  The  word  is  derived  from  the  name 
of  the  ancient  city  of  Mykenai. 

3  Dr.  Schliemann,  who  excavated  Mykenai,  had  previously  conducted 
excavations  on  the  island  of  Ithaca  in  1868,  and  in  Hissarlick  in  1873. 


2  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

B.  C.,  had  been  all  but  savages.  Assuming  that  Mykenai  with 
its  beautiful  monuments  was  a  solitary  exception,  they  called 
the  civilization  there  revealed  Mycenaean.  To-day  it  is  known 
that  this  civilization  covered  a  large  area  and  flourished  in 
other  places,  for  instance,  on  Crete,  earlier  than  in  Mykenai. 
Different  names  have,  therefore,  been  suggested,  such  as 
Aigean  or  Mediterranean,  but  there  are  objections  to  all  of 
them,  and  in  consequence  the  term  Mycenaean  is  still  the 
almost  universal  favorite. 

The  date  of  the  beginning  of  this  civilization  is  uncertain. 
It  belongs  in  the  early  second  or  the  third  millenium  before 
Christ.  Some  investigators  place  it  still  farther  back. 

Architecture,  painting,  and  the  minor  arts  flourished,  while 
sculpture  was  not  popular,  and,  as  the  few  remains  indicate, 
was  practiced  only  on  rare  occasions  and  by  men  whose 
training  fitted  them  better  for  work  along  other  lines.  The 
great  staircase  of  the  palace  of  Phaistos  '  in  Crete,  Plate  i,  the 
Throne  Room  of  the  palace  of  Knossos,  Plate  2,  and  the  Gate- 
way of  Mykenai,  Plate  3,  are  samples  of  the  impressive  and 
noble  grandeur  of  Mycenaean  architecture. 

The  gold  cups  from  Vaphio,  Plate  8  ;  the  ornaments,  Plates 
9  and  10  ;  and  the  mask2  of  a  bearded  man  of  thin  gold  leaf, 
Plate  4,  indicate  the  perfection  to  which  the  goldsmith's  art 
was  carried,  and  the  last  also  the  lack  of  that  knowledge  of 
the  bodies  of  men  which  the  sculptor  needs.  The  low  plane 
on  which  sculpture  was  is  seen  in  the  three  idols  in  the  British 
Museum,  Plate  6. 

The  relief  in  the  Museum  in  Candia  on  Crete,  Plate  5, 
which  is  of  uncertain  date,  is  added  here,  because  the  char- 


1  See  Halbherr,  Man.  Antichi,  1902.  2  For  another  head  from 
Mykenai,  discovered  in  1896,  see  Ephemcris,  1902,  pp.  iff.,  Plates  I 
and  2. 


THE   MYCENAEAN  AGE,  3 

ioteer,  his  horses  and  his  dog  running  along  with  them,  re- 
produce types  known  from  much  cruder  grave-reliefs J  in 
Mykenai.  The  two  warriors  in  the  rear  are  superior  to  any 
sculpture  found  in  Mykenai  and  carry  shields  unlike  those 2 
known  there. 

Plate  7  reproduces  two  painted  metopes  from  Thermon,3 
which  show  their  relation  to  Mycenaean  art  in  the  spiral  decor- 
ations of  the  borders  of  the  garments  and  in  the  rosettes  on 
one  of  them,  Plate  70,  similiar  to  those  on  Plates  9  and  10. 
Their  state  of  preservation  is  remarkable,  so  that  they  are 
better  able  to  indicate  the  proficiency  of  wall-painting  in  the 
Mycenaean  Age  than  the  few  fragments  of  such  paintings  in 
existence  to-day. 

The  chief  interest  of  these  figures,  however,  is  the  similarity 
which  exists  between  them  and  some  later  Greek  sculptured 
monuments,  especially  two  metopes  from  Selinus.4  Herakles, 
Plate  47b,  carries  the  Kekropes  in  the  same  way  as  the  man, 
Plate  7b,  carries  his  booty ;  while  the  motive  of  the  other 
painted  metope,  Plate  73,  of  a  man  cutting  off  (or  having  cut 
off )  the  head  of  another  figure,  occurs  again  in  Selinus,  Plate 
4?a.  The  half  kneeling  position,  indicative  of  rapid  running, 
Plate  7a,  is  copied  perhaps  in  the  figure  of  Medusa,  Plate  47a, 
and  certainly  in  the  Flying  Figure  from  Delos,  Plate  32.  The 
shape  of  the  wing  on  the  shoe,  Plate  73,  is  identical  with  that 
on  the  back  of  the  ankle  of  the  Delian  figure. 

Such  correspondences  are  not  accidental.  They  indicate 
that  even  during  the  "  Dark  Middle  Ages  of  Greece,"  which 
intervened  between  the  fall  of  the  Mycenaean  civilization  and 


1  See  P.  Gardner,  "  Sculptured  Tombs  of  Hellas,"  figs.  18,  19,  and  20. 
2  For  Mycenaean  shields  see  Tsountas  and  Manatt,  "  The  Mycenaean 
Age,"  pp.  igiff.  3  Discovered  in  1889;  Ephemtrist  1903,  pp.  7lff., 
Plates  3  and  4.  4The  Greek  spelling  is  Selinous. 


4         GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  rise  of  historic  Greek  sculpture,  more  than  the  mere 
memory  of  past  glories  survived.  Actual  mementoes,  how- 
ever, were  probably  as  few  as  the  inherited  love  of  things 
beautiful  was  strong.  Certainty  on  this  point  is  impossible, 
for  as  yet  these  centuries  are  very  dark,  the  only  ray  of  light 
being  shed  by  the  Homeric  poems.  The  civilization  which 
the  poems  portray  is  a  mixture  of  the  traditional  splendor  of 
the  past  and  the  existing  conditions  in  the  time  of  the  poet.1 
Homer  is,  therefore,  no  safe  guide  to  the  understanding  of 
these  "  Middle  Ages,"  except  in  so  far  as  his  poems  prove  that 
even  in  his  time  there  were  people  who  loved  the  beautiful 
well  enough  to  conceive  noble  thoughts  and  to  appreciate 
them  when  they  were  expressed. 


SHORT  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  MYCENAEAN  ART. 

Tsountas  and  Manatt,  The  Mycencean  Age. 

H.  R.  Hall,  The  Oldest  Civilization  of  Greece,  with  bibliography, 
pp.  XXX Iff. 

William  Ridgeway,  The  Early  Age  of  Greece. 

IMPORTANT  ARTICLES. 

A.  J.  A.,  Series  I,  Vol.  I,  No.  3;  Series  II,  Vols.  I,  pp.  3i3ff.; 
IV,  pp.  49<Dff. ;  V,  pp.  230  and  3i5ff. ;  VII,  p.  243. 

/.  H.  S.,  XIV,  pp.  8iff. ;  XVI,  pp.  7;ff. 

Rev.  Arch.,  1897  (30),  p.  143,  fig.  2;  (31)  PI.  XX;  1899  (35)  pp.  i6ff.; 
1903,  pp.  I49-I53- 

Jahrbuch,  1889,  IV,  pp.  iigff. 

Class.  Review,  1902,  p.  137. 

Journal  of  Royal  Institute  of  British  Architects  X  (03),  pp.  97-106, 
and  the  recent  numbers  of  the  Monumenti  Antichi  and  the  Annual  of 
the  British  School  at  Athens. 

1  Or  poets.  The  question  whether  Homer  wrote  the  Ilias  and  the 
Odysee,  or  whether  these  poems  are  the  joint  works  of  many  men  is 
still  unsettled. 


PART  Two. 


Archaic  Sculpture. 

THE  period  of  Archaic  Greek  Sculpture  is  one  of  explora- 
tion. The  artists  strove  to  gain  clear  perceptions  of  the  sub- 
jects worthy  of  representation,  laboring  to  understand  them 
and  to  master  the  intricacies  of  the  several  materials  '  in  which 
they  worked.  Some  of  their  types  were  bound  to  disappear, 
because  they  were  unworthy  or  unsuitable  for  corporeal  repre- 
sentation ;  but  the  majority  of  the  early  creations  are  valuable 
as  bearing  the  germs  from  which  the  later  masterpieces  grew. 

The  lover  of  things  beautiful  may  find  little  to  admire  in  this 
period,  which  is,  nevertheless,  one  of  the  greatest  importance. 
During  the  two  centuries  (about  650-480  B.  C.)  which  it  lasted 
those  achievements  were  accomplished,  or  at  least  the  founda- 
tions for  them  were  laid,  which  distinguish  Greek  Art  from  all 
other  arts  of  the  world.  Every  kind  of  sham  was  forbidden. 
Simplicity  was  sought,  truth  was  worshipped,  the  accidental 
was  not  admitted,  and  throughout,  only  those  subjects  were 
carved,  the  worth  of  which  was  inherent  and  not  dependent 
on  perfection  of  execution.  The  first  aim  of  the  true  Greek 


1  For  a  discussion  of  the  several  materials  and  the  demands  they 
made  on  the  artists,  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  9 iff. 


6         GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

was  to  discover,  "What  is  worthy?"  the  second,  "  What  is 
the  best  way  to  carve  it?"  Almost  all  other  nations  invert 
this  order ;  skill  first,  and  discipline  last,  if  at  all. 

Of  the  artists  themselves  we  know  little.  A  few  names 
stand  out  clearly;  Daidalos,  partly  a  mythical  personage, 
Endoios,  Smilis,  Achermos,  Antenor,  and  others,1  but  it  has 
been  found  impossible  to  identify,  with  certainty,  any  extant 
statues  as  their  works. 

Judged  by  the  statues  and  reliefs  now  in  our  museums,  the 
archaic  sculptors,  as  a  class,  tower  head  and  shoulders  above 
their  contemporary  vase  painters.  The  unmistakable  borrow- 
ing of  the  minor  arts  from  Egypt  and  the  Orient,  and  a  certain 
accidental  resemblance  between  early  Greek  statues  and  a 
certain  Egyptian  type,  has  led  many  to  believe  in  a  similarly 
close  connection  between  Greece  and  Egypt  in  sculpture. 
The  inaccuracy  of  this  view,  however,  so  self-evident  to  the 
art  student,  has  recently  been  conclusively  proved.2 

The  most  satisfactory  survey  3  of  the  archaic  period  con- 
cerns itself,  first  with  the  figures  in  the  round,  and  then  with 
reliefs.  And  since  the  drapery  of  women —  men  were  gener- 
ally represented  nude  —  added  another  distinguishing  feature, 
male  and  female  figures  are  best  treated  separately. 

Statues  of  Men. 
PLATE    11  a.     Grave  Monument  of  Kitylos  and  Dermys.     Of 

yellowish  brown  limestone.  National  Museum,  Athens.  From  Tan- 
agra,  Bo2otia.  Robinson,  No.  6;  Robert,  Arch.  Zeitung,  1875,  PP- 
I5iff. ;  Korte,  Athen.  Mitth.  Ill,  1878,  pp.  3oiff. ;  Reinach  II,  109,  i. 

1  For  these/artists  see  Gardner,  pp.  gSff.     2  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  86ff. 

3  The  customary  division  in  Dorian  and  Ionian  sculpture  is  ill-ad- 
vised. Best  account,  Gardner,  pp.  133*?.  Argument  against  it,  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  iO4ff. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  7 

This  is  the  best  preserved  of  a  number  of  Boeotian  grave 
reliefs,  and  offers  excellent  indications  of  the  earliest  type  of 
the  so-called  Apollo  statues,  Plates  nb  ff.     The  two  figures 
are  not  cut  loose  from  the  back  and  are,  therefore,  technically 
speaking,  in  high  relief.     They  are,  however,  designed  in  the 
round  without  reference  to  the  background.     The  clumsy  ar- 
rangement of  the  arms,  the  almost  incredibly  faulty  anatomy, 
and  the  visible  inability  of  the  maker  of  this  group  to  over- 
come even  the  slightest  difficulties,  stamp  him  as  a  very  un-  < 
skilled  stonecutter.     He  was  far  behind  his  time,  as  is  proved  i  ~7 
by  a  comparison  of  his  work  with  the  fragmentary  stele  of  / 
Agathon  and  Aristokrates  (Athen.  Mitth.  Ill,  PI.  15).     Both  ' 
monuments  contain  inscriptions  which  show  that  they  are  of 
about  the  same  time,  but  the  Agathon  stele  is  by  far  the  better 
of  the  two. 

The  same  lack  of  skill  that  characterizes  the  Kitylos  and 
Dermys  group  was  doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  earliest  crea- 
tions of  the  "Apollo  "  type,  however  superior  the  "  Apollos  " 
may  have  been  from  the  beginning  in  conception.  None  earlier 
than  the  "  Apollo  "  of  Thera,  Plate  t^have  been  found,  but  if  'A 
any  were  extant,  we  might  expect  to  see  in  them  no  opening 
between  the  arms  and  the  torso,  just  as  is  the  case  with 
Kitylos  and  Dermys. 

Another  important  similarity  between  this  group  and  some 
of  the  now  lost  first  "  Apollos  "  is  probably  contained  in  the 
formation  of  the  knees.  The  legs  in  all  the  early  statues  are 
broken  away,  but  in  the  "  Apollos  "  of  Tenea  and  of  Melos, 
Plates  14  and  13,  in  which  they  are  preserved,  we  find  a  very 
prominent  muscle  over  the  knee.1  The  beginning  of  this 
muscle,  wrongly  conceived,  is  also  seen  in  the  Kitylos  and 

1  For  the  importance  of  this  muscle  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1151!. 


8  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Dermys  group,  where  some  scholars  have  erroneously  believed 
they  saw  the  bones  of  the  knee  represented. 

At  the  time  when  the  Kitylos  and  Dermys  monument  was 
made,  more  accurate  knees  could  be  carved ;  while  the  fact 
that  the  background  was  preserved  ought  to  have  enabled  the 
stonecutter  to  cut  the  arms  loose  from  the  body  without  dan- 
ger of  having  them  break  off.  That  he  nevertheless  did  not 
do  so,  but  carved  what  we  believe,  with  a  fair  amount  of  cer- 
tainty, to  have  been  characteristics  of  the  earliest  "  Apollos," 
suggests  that  it  was  his  intention  to  copy  this  type.  It  is 
therefore  possible  that  in  this  monument  we  have  two  of  the 
very  earliest  statues  preserved  to  us. 

PLATE  lib.  "Apollo"  Of  Orchomenos.  Of  grayish  stone.  Na- 
tional Museum,  Athens.  Dicovered  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Orcho- 
menos. E.  von  Mach,  pp.  ii3ff.,  PI.  4,  fig.  4;  Robinson,  No.  21; 
F.  W.,  No.  43  ;  Reinach  II,  76,  n. 

PLATE  12.  "  ApOllO  "  Of  Thera.  Of  very  coarse  marble.  Na- 
tional Museum,  Athens.  Parts  of  the  neck  are  restored.  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  noff.  PI.  4,  fig.  3;  Robinson,  No.  20;  F.  W.,  No.  14; 
Reinach  II,  76,  10. 

PLATE  13.  "  ApOllO  "  Of  MelOS.  Of  marble.  National  Museum, 
Athens.  Discovered  in  1891,  on  the  island  of  Melos.  Feet  restored. 
Reinach  II,  76,  i. 

PLATE  14.  "Apollo"  Of  Tenea.  Of  rather  coarse,  probably 
Parian,  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich.  Discovered  in  1846.  The  arms 
and  legs  were  badly  broken,  but  only  the  middle  of  the  right  arm  is 
modern.  The  head,  which,  when  found,  was  protected  by  a  large  urn 
placed  over  it,  is  in  a  perfect  state  of  preservation.  E.  von  Mach, 
Plate  facing  p.  80,  pp.  iioff. ;  Furtwangler,  Cat.  No.  47  ;  Robinson, 
No.  22 ;  F.  W.,  No.  49;  Reinach  II,  76,  2. 

PLATE  I5a.  "Apollo"  from  Mt.  PtOOS.  Of  Breotian  stone. 
National  Museum,  Athens.  Gardner,  Fig.  24;  Reinach  II,  76,  7. 

PLATE    15b.     "ApOllO"   from   Mt.   PtOOS.     Of   Boeotian   stone. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  9 

National  Museum,   Athens.     Gardner.     Fig.    25 ;    Reinach   II,  77,  4 
(without  head  and  fragment  of  right  arm)  or  81,4  and  5. 

PLATE  16.  "Strangford  Apollo."  British  Museum,  London. 
Found  on  island  Anaphe  (according  to  Newton,  Essays  on  Art  and 
Archeology,  p.  81),  and  brought  to  England  by  Viscount  Strangford. 
Below  life  size.  E.  von  Mach,  Plate  4,  fig.  3.  pp.  uoff. ;  F.  W.,  No. 
89;  Robinson,  No.  23;  Reinach  II,  81,  6. 

These  seven  statues  are  the  best  representatives  of  a  large 
group  of  male  figures  known  as  "  Apollos."  In  ancient  litera- 
ture we  are  told  of  a  statue  of  this  god  thus  represented,  and 
most  of  these  figures  have  been  found  in  or  near  old  sanctu- 
aries of  Apollo.  Pausanias,  on  the  other  hand,  describes  the 
monument  of  an  athlete  which  must  have  looked  much  like  the 
"  Apollos,"  while  the  Tenean  figure,  Plate  14,  was  found  on  a 
grave,  obviously  intended  to  represent  the  dead.  The  ques- 
tion whether  these  statues  are  gods  or  men  is,  therefore,  an 
open  one ;  but  where  certainty  is  impossible,  it  is  advisable  to 
retain  the  familiar  name,  putting  it  in  quotation  marks  or  add- 
ing a  "  so-called." 

The  gradual  growth  of  accuracy  of  conception,  and  also  of 
skill,  is  splendidly  illustrated  in  these  seven  statues.  In  all  of 
them,  except  the  Orchomenos  "  Apollo,"  the  artists  have, 
apparently,  done  their  very  best.  Even  the  Theran  figure  with 
its  shortcomings  appeals  to  us.  The  honesty  and  the  sim- 
plicity of  its  conception,  and  the  proud  assurance  of  the  artist, 
who  knew  that  he  would  meet  with  a  public  able  to  under- 
stand him,  is  noteworthy.  Not  by  contortions,  nor  unnatural 
or  unexpected  positions,  has  he  sought  to  attract  the  attention 
of  the  spectator.  He  has  introduced  pleasing  lines  where  his 
subject  permitted  it,  as  in  the  contours  of  the  arms,  but  he 
has  disdained  the  trick  of  some  Egyptians,  of  many  Orientals, 
and  of  not  a  few  modern  artists,  of  twisting  the  members  of 


10  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  human  body  from  their  natural  positions, —  for  the  sake 
of  the  resulting  beautiful  lines. 

The  exact  forms  of  the  bodily  members  he  did  not  com- 
prehend. The  trunks  of  the  figures  are  especially  inaccurate, 
and  the  features  very  unreal.  Even  where  the  artist  knew 
better,  his  mastery  over  his  material  was  too  slight  to  permit 
freedom  of  execution.  He  was  afraid  of  the  heaviness  of  the 
stone  in  which  he  wrought.  The  neck  had  to  be  thickened 
and  to  be  assisted  by  the  flowing  hair  in  order  to  support  the 
head.  The  arms  were  hardly  detached  from  the  body.  But 
glancing  along  the  row  of  these  figures,  we  note  how  every 
successive  artist  dared  a  little  more ;  first,  the  Ptoon  Apollo, 
Plate  i5a,  and  then  the  Orchomenos  figure,  Plate  nb,  then 
those  from  Melos  and  from  Tenea,  where  only  the  hands  are 
connected  with  the  body  by  means  of  long  ridges.  These 
ridges,  in  Plate  14,  have  given  way  to  small  blocks,  and  in  the 
Strangford  Apollo,  Plate  16,  even  the  blocks  have  disappeared. 
A  similar  advance  shows  in  the  treatment  of  the  hands  and 
also  in  the  general  anatomy  of  the  bodies.  Only  the  features 
remain  comparatively  the  same.  This  is  not  surprising,  for 
they  were  meaningless  to  the  early  Greeks  who  had  not  yet 
learned  to  read  in  them  the  soul.  The  very  idea  of  soul 
was  foreign  to  their  thoughts,  and  was  to  remain  so  for  .several 
more  generations. 

There  are  differences,  to  be  sure,  in  the  faces  of  these  seven 
statues.  Some  have  eyes  that  slant  inward,  Plates  12  and 
i5b,  others  have  the  eyes  almost  on  a  horizontal  line,  Plates 
14  and  "i5a.  Some  mouths  are  straight,  Plate  i5a,  in  others 
both  lips  curve  evenly,  Plate  12,  while  in  still  others  there 
is  an  approximately  straight  line  where  the  lips  meet,  with 
only  a  pleasing  curve  for  the  edge  of  the  lower  lip,  Plates 
14  and  1 6.  The  characteristic  qualities  of  the  eyes  and  of  the 
mouths,  and  especially  their  inter-relation  were  not  under- 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  XI 

stood.  The  artists  had  yet  to  learn  that  what  we  call  the 
beautiful  eye  is  the  eye  plus  its  surroundings.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  mouth.  Cheek  and  chin  in  nature  are  not  mean- 
ingless masses,  modelled  at  will  by  the  sculptor  at  one  broad 
sweep ;  they  are  most  delicately  constituted  transmitters  of 
even  the  slightest  action  on  the  part  of  either  eyes  or  mouth. 
The  ignorance  of  these  facts  led  to  some  rather  perverse  prac- 
tices in  the  oldest  Greek  sculpture.  A  cut  in  a  certain  part 
of  the  face  meant  a  mouth.  The  lines  which  bound  it  were 
the  lips.  And  these,  their  individuality  being  ignored,  offered 
to  the  sculptors  excellent  opportunities  for  the  exercise  of 
fancy.  At  times  a  good,  almost  an  expressive  mouth  was 
carved,  at  others  a  pleasing  eye  resulted ;  but  both  were  ac- 
cidents. If  they  had  not  been  so,  they  would  have  been 
found  in  the  same  statues,  the  expression  of  the  one  enhanc- 
ing that  of  the  other,  but  this  is  rarely  the  case. 

The  curve  of  the  mouth  has  made  people  believe  that  the 
Greeks  desired  to  give  to  their  statues  a  pleasing  expression, 
that  is  to  say,  that  they  intentionally  carved  a  smile.1  This  is  '• 
a  mistake.  The  archaic  artists  never  thought  of  the  expres- 
sion of  the  face  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word.  If  there  is 
a  pleasing  line  encircling  the  mouth,  it  is  there  for  the  pleasure 
it  gives  to  the  spectator.  Later,  when  the  true  essence  of  the 
lips  was  understood,  less  freedom  was  granted  the  artists,  but 
it  is  noticeable  that  from  the  very  beginning,  the  liberties 
which  the  artists  took,  were  generally  within  the  limits  of 
what  is  naturally  probable. 

PLATE  17a.  Apollo  PhtlesiOS  (?).  Small  bronze  statuette  after 
Kanachos,  called  the  Payne-Knight  Apollo.  British  Museum,  London. 
Very  small  bronze  statuette,  probably  correctly  identified  by  means  of 
descriptions  (Pliny  N.  J/.,  34,  75)  and  coins  (see  Overbeck,  Kunstmy- 

1  For  the  so-called  archaic  smile  see  E.  von  Mach.     pp.  i54ff. 


12 


GREEK:  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


thologie  des  Apollon,   pp.  z^ft.,    and   the  table  of   coins   I.   No.  22ff). 
Reinach  II,  80,  9. 

PLATE  irb.    Bronze  Statuette  from  Ligourio.     Berlin.    Furt- 

wangler,  50;    Programn  zum    Winckdmannsfestet  Berlin.     Waldstein, 
J.  H.  S.,  24,  (1904),  pp.  i3off.  ;  Reinach  II,  85,  i. 

The  importance  of  these  two  statuettes  is  based  on  different 
grounds  from  those  of  the  preceding  numbers.  In  Plate  i  ya 
most  scholars  see  the  copy  of  a  very  old  work  by  Kanachos,  a 
famous  sculptor  of  Sikyon,  while  Plate  i  yb  has  been  said  to 
have  some  connection  with  the  work  of  Ageladas,  an  artist  of 
Aigina. 

The  first  identification  has  much  in  its  favor.  It  is  based 
on  a  description  of  the  Kanachos  statue  and  on  a  comparison 
of  the  statuette  with  coins  representing  it. 

The  second  is  one  of  those  "  brilliant  discoveries  "  which 
dazzle  the  student  without  throwing  sufficient  light  on  the  sub- 
ject to  overcome  subsequent  doubts.1 

Irrespective  of  their  "  identifications,"  these  statuettes  are 
invaluable  as  showing  the  greater  freedom  of  pose  and  of 
execution  which  bronze  permitted,  as  compared  with  marble. 
The  arms  need  not  be  "  glued  "  to  the  body,  as  was  the  case 
in  the  contemporary  "  Apollo  "  statues.2  A  glance  at  Plate 
iya  and  then  at  the  "Apollo"  of  Tenea,  Plate  14,  gives  a 
clear  indication  of  how  much  of  the  latter  figure  is  due  to 
limitations  of  skill,  and  how  little,  comparatively,  to  limita- 
tions of  conception. 

The  Ligourio  statuette  belongs  to  a  somewhat  later  day, 
when  the  anatomy  of  the  body  was  more  clearly  understood. 


the  contra  in  this  case  are  contained  in  the  literature 
given  above. 

2  Overbeck  I,  p.  145,  calls   the  London  bronze  archaistic,  that  is, 
made  in  late  Greek  times  in  imitation  of  earlier  works. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  !3 

It  marks  an  advance  even  over  the  Strangford  "  Apollo,"  Plate 
1 6,  although  the  side  views  of  both  figures  are  somewhat  alike, 
with  a  sharp  angle  at  the  small  of  the  back,  and  the  erect  head 
supported  by  the  neck  without  any  assistance  of  the  hair. 

PLATE  18.  "Apollo"  Piombino.  Of  bronze.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Found  in  the  sea  near  Piombino  in  Tuscany.  Height,  three  feet,  four 
inches.  For  the  active  discussion  as  to  its  genuineness  as  archaic 
Greek  see  bibliography  in  Miiller's  Handbuch,  paragrapk  422,  note  7. 
Best  discussion,  Overbeck  I,  pp.  234ff.  Reinach  II,  84,  9. 

Owing  to  two  inscriptions  on  this  statue,  possibly  of  later 
date,  the  genuineness  of  this  "  Apollo  "  as  an  archaic  Greek 
work  has  been  doubted.  Overbeck,  however,  has  conclusively 
proved  its  ancient  origin.  The  extremely  delicate  feet  resem- 
ble those  of  the  "  Apollo  "  of  Tenea,  Plate  14,  and  are  unlike 
the  clumsy  feet  of  later  imitations ;  while  the  structure  of  the 
knee  is  similar  to  that  found  on  the  marbles  from  Aigina, 
Plates  78ff.,  which  are  admittedly  influenced  by  the  contem- 
porary bronze  workers. 

The  delicate  contours  of  the  back,  in  contrast  to  the  appar- 
ently straight  front,  are  in  keeping  with  the  Tenean  figure, 
Plate  14,  while  a  further  point  of  contact  with  that  statue  is 
found  in  the  position  of  the  hips,  slightly  too  low  to  be  accur- 
ate. The  small  head  and  the  long  legs  are  characteristic  of 
the  archaic  period,  although  they  reappear  in  later  works. 
The  Belvedere  Apollo  has  the  same  long  legs,  but  for  a  special 
purpose.1  The  pose  of  the  figure  is  characteristically  archaic, 
both  feet  firmly  planted  on  the  ground,  with  the  point  of 
gravitation  exactly  between  them. 

The  statue  may  represent  an  "  Apollo  "  with  attributes  not 
unlike  those  of  the  statue  by  Kanachos,  Plate  i  ya,  which  ac- 

1  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  308,  309. 


I4  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

cording  to  Pliny,  held  a  fawn  on  one  hand  and  a  bow  in  the 
other.  Overbeck's  interpretation,  however,  is  probably  more 
correct.  He  says  the  Piombino  figure  represented  a  boy 
assisting  at  a  sacrifice,  with  a  cup  in  his  left  hand  and  a  saucer 
in  his  right. 

PLATE  19.  The  Calf  Bearer.  Of  bluish  marble.  Probably  from 
Mt.  Hymettos  near  Athens.  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  Discovered 
on  the  Akropolis  1864-1865,  the  base  in  1887.  Overbeck  I,  pp.  iSyff. ; 
F.  W.,  109;  Robinson,  No.  7,  whose  date  for  the  statue  (early  sixth 
century),  is  undoubtedly  wrong.1  Overbeck's  date  (about  536  B.  C.)  is 
based  on  the  inscription  on  the  base  and  is  probably  correct.  Reinach 
11,551,1. 

The  motive  of  this  statue  is  a  familiar  one  in  ancient  sculpt- 
ure. Reinach  II,  pp.  55 iff.,  gives  nearly  two  dozen  instances. 
Kalamis  had  represented  Hermes  in  this  fashion  (Pausanias, 
9,  20,  4),  and  a  similar  monument  of  a  man  named  Biton  is 
known  from  ancient  literature. 

This  figure  doubtless  represents  Kombos,  who,  according  to 
the  inscription,  dedicated  the  statue,  and  is  not  a  Hermes 
Moschophoros  (calf  bearer),  by  which  name  it  used  to  be 
known.  It  is  one  of  the  few  instances  from  Greece  proper, 
where  men  of  this  period  are  not  represented  nude.  The 
sacred  occasion  required  the  addition  of  a  garment.  A  draped 
male  figure,  however,  was  not  included  in  the  figures  the  artist 
knew  how  to  carve.  He  has,  therefore,  designed  his  figure 
nude,  adding  only  a  few  lines  to  indicate  the  heavier  folds,  and 
trusting,  on  the  whole,  to  the  application  of  color.2  The  gar- 
ment is  clearly  carved  only  below  the  left  elbow. 

The  doubts  in  the  Attic  origin  of  this  figure  are  ill-founded. 
The  provenience  of  the  marble  is  no  conclusive  proof,  for  a 

1  Robinson  also  calls  the  calf  a  bull. 

2  For  the  coloring  of  Greek  statues  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  67ff. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  ^ 

foreigner  might  have  worked  in  Athens.  There  are,  however, 
several  indications  which  point  to  an  Attic  workshop.  Chief 
of  them  is  the  ear,  which  is  exactly  like  the  ear  of  the  Aristion 
stele  (see  below),  and  that  of  the  head  of  the  Discus  Carrier 
stele  (see  below),  both  Athenian  works.  The  ear  of  a  figure 
is  a  minor,  but  a  very  intricate,  part.  It  lends  itself  to  a 
schematic  treatment,  and  as  long  as  no  portraits  were  carved, 
the  artists  wrought  the  ears  according  to  the  habits  acquired  in 
their  schools.  The  close  resemblance,  therefore,  between  the 
ear  of  the  Calf  Bearer  and  the  later  Athenian  works  may  be 
used  as  a  valid  argument. 

A  few  additional  indications  of  the  Attic  origin  of  the  statue 
are  found  in  its  technique,  which  resembles  somewhat  the  still 
earlier  Poros  sculptures  of  the  Akropolis,  Plates  40  and  41. 
The  erroneous  date  for  the  statue,  early  in  the  sixth  century 
(Robinson),  is  due  to  an  undervaluation  of  the  difficulties  that 
marble  offered  over  the  softer  Poros.  Nothing  is  more  in- 
structive than  a  visit  to  the  Akropolis  Museum.  Stepping 
from  the  Poros  Sculpture  Room  into  that  of  the  early  marbles, 
one  feels  at  first  as  if  one  had  stepped  back  one  whole  genera- 
tion in  the  development  of  sculpture.  The  thoughtful  student, 
however,  soon  realizes  that  this  is  not  the  case.  He  has 
learned  how  to  distinguish  between  halting  skill  and  inaccurate 
conception,  and  keeping  this  distinction  in  mind,  he  realizes 
that  the  seeming  step  backward,  is  due  to  the  difficulties  of  the 
new  material,  and  not  to  a  retrogression  of  artistic  concep- 
tions. 

For  the  detailed  study  of  the  Calf  Bearer,  it  is  interesting  to 
note  the  excellent  connection  of  the  body  of  the  calf  with  that 
of  the  man,  the  skill  shown  in  carving  the  head  of  the  calf, 
and  the  customary  absence  of  accurate  conceptions  in  regard 
to  the  human  features ;  further,  the  mistaken  lines  of  the 
front  leg  of  the  animal,  and  its  excellent  hind  quarters  and 


16  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

hoofs ;  the  muscular  arms  of  the  man '  and  his  delicately 
modelled  abdomen;  the  beard  which  is  simply  blocked  out 
to  receive  the  paint,  and  the  hair,  which,  in  the  simplicity 
of  the  locks  over  the  forehead,  stands  in  strong  contrast  to 
the  fanciful  curls  of  the  flying  figure  from  Delos,  Plate  32. 
On  his  head  the  Calf  Bearer  seems  to  wear  a  skull-cap,  unless 
this  seeming  cap  was  once  painted  in  the  semblance  of  hair. 
The  mouth  is  very  interesting,  while  it  is  difficult  to  judge 
of  the  eyes  in  their  present  appearance.  The  eyeballs,  made 
of  a  special  material,  were  inserted  in  the  sockets,  and  are 
now  lost. 

Supplementary  Reading  and  References  for  Archaic  Male  Figures. 

1.  For  the  "  Apollo  "  figures  in  their  relation  to  the  spirit  and  the 
principles  of  Greek  Sculpture,     E.  von  Mach,  pp.  logff. 

2.  For  an  inscribed  base  of  an  "  Apollo  "  with  only  the  feet  pre- 
served,    A.  J.  A.  I,  PI.  x. 

3.  For  an  alabaster   figure,  resembling    the  "  Apollo "  type,  from 
Naukratis.ya^r^wcA  VII  (1893)  p.  180.      Kieseritzky's  view  that  this 
statue   speaks   in   favor  of   the  Egyptian  origin  of   Greek  Sculpture 
is  not  well  taken. 

4.  For  a  somewhat  more  advanced   type  see  the  statue  Sciarra, 
now  in  Copenhagen,     Overbeck  I,  pp.  238ff.,  figure  62. 

Statues  of  Women. 

PLATE  20.     Statue  from  DelOS.     Of  rough  marble,  dedicated  by , 
Nikandre  of  Naxos.     National  Museum.     Over  six  feet  in  height,  in- 
cluding the  base.     Overbeck  I,  pp.  95ff. ;  Gardner,  p.  121 ;  Reinach  II, 
645,  i. 

In  no  other  extant  figure,  has  the  artist  been  so  completely 
the  slave  of  his  material  and  of  the  conventional  shape 2  of  his 
block,  as  here.  The  block  was  like  a  plank  of  wood,  thicker 

1  For  the  arms  cf.    Stele  of  Aristion,  (below).    2E.  von  Mach,  p.  109. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  17 

only  at  the  very  base,  so  that  not  even  the  face  projects 
beyond  the  plane  of  the  breast  and  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
figure.  The  waist  does  not  recede,  and  is  cut  in  only  at  the 
sides.  Owing  to  these  peculiarities,  Brunn  (quoted  by  Over- 
beck,  p.  95)  believed  that  this  statue  reproduced  one  of  the 
earliest  wooden  images.  Such  wooden  statues  were  of  two 
kinds,  i,  round,  carved  from  a  trunk  (look  at  "  Hera  "  of  Samos 
Plate  22)  and  2,  rectangular,  carved  from  a  plank. 

Against  Brunn's  view  we  may  assert  that  it  would  have  been  , 
irrational  to  carve  a  statue  from  a  plank,  when  the  round  trunk  ,' 
was  just  as  handy.     It  is,  therefore,  more  probable  that  rec- : 
tangular  wooden   statues   are   influenced   by  stone    sculpture 
than  that  they  have  left  their  traces  in  figures  like  the   one  j 
from  Delos,  for  it  is  reasonable  enough  to  suppose  that  the 
first   blocks   of   stone   which   were   quarried  were   thin   and/ 
rectangular.1 

The  Delian  statue,  moreover,  stands  near  the  beginning  of 
Greek  Sculpture.  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  it  the  result  of  a 
prolonged  experience  in  carving,  and  for  this  reason,  if  for 
no  other,  it  ought  not  to  be  considered  to  be  an  imitation 
of  a  technique  which  had  already  run  its  course. 

Drill  holes  in  the  hands  point  to  the  fact  that  this  is  the 
goddess  Artemis  carrying  her  attributes,  bow  and  arrow.  In 
view  of  the  now  lost  attributes,  it  is,  however,  impossible  to 
be  certain  on  this  point.  The  fact  that  Artemis  was  wor- 
shipped in  Delos  speaks  in  its  favor. 

'An  interesting  parallel  is  found  in  Babylonian-Assyrian  art.  The 
country  had  practically  no  stone  except  alabaster.  This  is  very  brittle 
and  can  be  quarried  only  in  thin  slabs.  One  statue,  not  in  relief,  is 
extant,  the  Assur-nazir-pal  in  the  British  Museum.  The  comparison 
of  the  Assyrian  figure  with  the  Delian  statue  is  full  of  suggestions 
for  the  student  of  comparative  art.  Here  it  suffices  to  remark  that  in 
the  case  of  the  Assur-nazir-pal  no  one  has  hinted  at  a  wood  original 


1 8  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  statue  was  undoubtedly  painted.  Gardner's  suggestion 
(p.  121)  that  the  hair-dress  can  only  be  derived  from  an 
Egyptian  model  is  untenable.  The  same  hair-dress  appears 
on  the  head  from  Crete  (Gardner,  p.  134,  fig.  18)  and  on 
other  Greek  works.  It  differs  from  that  of  the  Tenean 
"Apollo,"  Plate  14,  only  by  having  strands  of  the  hair  fall  in 
front  over  the  shoulders,  which  was  simply  an  additional  pre- 
caution against  the  dreaded  weakness  of  the  neck  which,  so 
the  ancients  thought,  could  not  support  the  head  unassisted. 

PLATE  21.  Draped  figure  from  the  Akropolis.  Of  Marble.  Akro- 
polis  Museum,  Athens.  Musees  a"Alkenes,  Rhomaides,  PI.  x;  Gazettes 
des  Beaux  Arts,  1888,  i,  p.  67  ;  Reinach  II,  650,  i. 

In  general  appearance,  this  figure  bears  an  unmistakable  re- 
semblance to  the  votive  offering  from  Delos,  Plate  20..  Es- 
pecially noteworthy  is  the  squareness  of  the  lower  parts  of  the 
statue,  where  traces  of  painting  show  how  even  the  flat  sur- 
face of  the  Delian  figure  could  have  been  transformed  to  the 
semblance  of  drapery.  The  hair,  no  longer  necessary  as 
chief  support  of  the  head,  is  thinner ;  only  three  braids  fall- 
ing over  each  shoulder.  The  left  lower  arm  was  raised,  and, 
to  make  this  possible,  was  carved  of  a  separate  piece  and  in- 
serted. The  discovery  of  this  very  simple  device  must  have 
come  with  great  surprise  to  the  early  artists,  who,  the  slaves 
of  their  materials,  had  felt  obliged  to  keep  the  arms  close  to 
the  sides  of  the  body.  The  flatness  of  the  breast  of  the 
Delian  figure  has  given  way  to  two  prominent  disks,  and  the 
nude,  where  it  shows,  is  modelled  with  decided  vigor.  The 
left  arm  is  in  proportions  similar  to  the  muscular  arm  of  the 
Calf  Bearer,  Plate  19,  and  to  that  of  the  stele  of  Aristion 
(below). 

The  figure  is  thus  marked  as  an  Athenian  work.  It  belongs 
to  a  long  series  of  draped  female  figures  found  on  the  Akro- 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  ig 

polis,  Plates  25-30,  and  is,  although  not  one  of  the  earliest, 
as  Gardner  says  (p.  174),  far  from  being  one  of  the  latest. 

PLATE  22.  The  "Hera"  from  Samos.  Of  marble.  Louvre, 
Paris.  Including  the  now  lost  head,  about  six  feet  high.  E.  von 
Mach  pp.  1051!. ;  Robinson  No.  38  ;  Reinach  II,  647,  I. 

An  inscription  at  the  side  of  the  statue  says  that  it  was  dedi- 
cated to  Hera  by  Cheramyes.1  The  size  of  the  statue  and  the 
fact  that  it  was  found  near  the  temple  of  the  goddess  makes  it 
probable  that  it  is  an  image  of  Hera.  Advocates  of  the  theory 
that  early  statues  are  influenced  by  wood  images,  see  in  this 
"  Hera  "  the  reproduction  of  the  second  traditional  type  of 
wooden  statues,  those  carved  from  the  round  trunk.  (For  the 
first  kind  see  the  discussion  to  Plate  20).  Neither  the  accu- 
racy nor  the  inaccuracy  of  this  view  can  be  proved.  The 
arguments  used  in  connection  with  Plate  20  make  it  more 
probable  that  this  is  an  independent  creation. 

In  nobility  of  conception  and  in  skill,  this  statue  marks  an 
advance  over  the  figure  from  Delos.  The  artist  is  by  no 
means  master  over  his  material,  but  he  shows  in  the  feet,  for 
instance,  and  in  the  gesture  of  the  left  arm  (now  broken 
away),  also  in  the  right  hand,  and  in  the  modelling  of  the 
right  arm,  and  finally  in  the  nobly  stiff  pose,  that  he  is  on  the 
way  to  overcome  material  difficulties.  Lovers  of  Greek  art, 
satiated  with  many  later  statues  of  the  goddess,  always  return 
to  the  "  Hera  "  of  Samos  with  pride  and  with  pleasure. 

For  the  fuller  discussion  of  the  many  fine  points  of  the  fig- 
ure, for  its  place  in  the  development  of  art,  for  the  drapery 
and  the  treatment  of  the  back,  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  io6ff. 

In  studying  the  figure,  note  especially  the  feet,  and  contrast 

*  Cheramyes  was  a  man,  and  not  a  woman,  as  inadvertently  stated, 
E.  von  Mach  p.  105. 


20  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

them  with  those  of  Chares,  Plate  36  ;  further,  the  circular  base 
and  how  it  is  met  by  the  garment ;  the  hand  supported  by  the 
drapery ;  the  absence  of  braids  falling  over  the  shoulder,  and 
the  consequently  broken  head ;  also  the  remarkably  short 
waist ;  and  (from  a  cast)  the  nail  of  the  middle  finger  of  the 
right  hand. 

PLATE  23.  Draped  Female  Figure  from  the  Akropolis.  Resem- 
bling the  "Hera"  from  Samos.  Of  marble.  Akropolis  Museum, 
Athens.  Collignon  I,  fig.  73  ;  Reinach  II,  647,  2. 

PLATE  24.    Head  and  Upper  Part  of  Draped  Female  Figure  from 

the  Akropolis.  Resembling  the  "  Hera "  from  Samos.  Of  marble. 
Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  Gardner  pp.  H4ff. ;  Reinach  II,  648,  10. 

In  these  two  pieces  we  see  the  further  development  of  the 
"  Hera"  from  Samos  type.  Plates  23  and  24  were,  like  the 
statue,  Plate  21,  found  together  with  a  large  number  of  other 
draped  female  figures  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens  ;  but,  unlike 
it,  they  show  no  clear  indications  of  Athenian  workmanship. 
In  speaking  of  the  Calf  Bearer,  Plate  19,  the  importance  of 
apparent  details,  such  as  ears,  etc.,  for  the  classification  of 
statues,  was  mentioned.  Such  a  detail  links  the  fragment, 
Plate  24,  irrevocably  to  the  "  Hera "  of  Samos.  The  nail, 
well  preserved  in  the  thumb,  corresponds  almost  exactly  to 
that  of  the  middle  finger  of  the  "  Hera ",  while  it  is  alto- 
gether different  from  the  nails  preserved  on  a  few  of  the 
other  Akropolis  figures,  and  from  those  of  the  Aristion  Stele 
(see  below). 

The  arrangement  of  the  drapery  is  very  similar,  if  not  iden- 
tical, in  the  three  monuments,  Plates  22,  23,  24,  while  the 
difference  in  the  execution  of  the  folds  is  readily  accounted  for 
by  growing  skill.  The  hair  does  not  fall  in  braids  over  the 
shoulders  in  any  of  these  monuments,  as  is  invariably  the  case 
with  the  other  Akropolis  figures.  The  treatment  of  the  hair 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  21 

in  the  preserved  head,  Plate  24,  is  unique.  The  only  other 
hair  at  all  comparable  to  it  is  found  on  a  statue  (Reinach  II, 
646,  8)  that  in  every  other  respect  is  the  exact  counterpart  of 
the  majority  of  the  Akropolis  figures. 

The  more  detailed  comparison  of  Plates  22  and  23  is  in- 
structive. In  the  Akropolis  torso,  the  right  arm  has  a  more 
natural  position.  The  artist  felt  secure  enough  to  dispense 
with  the  bracket-like  piece  of  drapery  under  the  hand.  This 
observation  explains  for  the  first  time  the  short  waist  of  the 
"  Hera."  In  order  to  support  the  hand  by  means  of  the 
drapery,  the  artist  had  to  choose  between  two  evils.  He  had 
either  to  shorten  the  arm,  bringing  the  hand  too  near  the 
waist-line,  or  to  shorten  the  waist.  He  preferred  the  latter 
alternative.  And  he  was  right.  The  shortened  arm  would 
have  given  the  statue  a  deformed  appearance. 

PLATES  25-30.    Fragments  of  Draped  Female  Figures  from  the 

Akropolis.  Of  marble.  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  Discovered 
during  the  excavations  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens  from,  1885  to  1891. 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  I44ff.  and  328ff. ;  Reinach  II,  pp.  635ff. ;  colored 
plates,  Antike  Denkmdltr  I,  Plates  19  and  39,  (but  see  E.  von  Mach, 
p.  328);  Collignon,  frontispiece;  Au  Muste  de  rAkropole  d'  AthZnes, 
H.  Lechat.  Plate  25a:  Reinach  II,  635,  3.  Plate  25b:  Reinach  II, 
637,  10.  Plate  25c:  Reinach  II,  635,  7.  Plates  26a  and  26b :  E.  von 
Mach,  IX,  4,  and  p.  144.  Plate  27:  Reinach  II,  636,4.  Plate  28: 
Reinach  II,  635,  i.  Plate  29:  Reinach  II,  635,  8.  Plate  30:  Reinach 
II,  635,  2- 

With  the  discovery  of  the  series  of  statues  to  which  these 
nine  belong,  a  great  part  of  the  gap  of  our  knowledge  of 
Greek  Sculpture  before  the  Persian  wars  has  been  filled.  It  is 
true  these  statues  are  all  of  one  type,  but  they  show  sufficient 
variety  to  indicate  what  kind  of  work  the  sculptors  were  able 
to  do  in  other  directions. 


22  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Glancing  along  the  line,  we  see  the  artistic  conception 
gradually  freeing  itself  from  the  fetters  of  insufficient  skill,  and 
the  skill  itself  growing  to  do  justice  to  the  dictates  of  the 
artist's  design.  Finally  the  skill  caught  up  to  the  conception, 
outstripped  it,  and  threatened  to  do  what  it  has  often  done 
before  and  since  —  created  insipid,  conventional  works.  Every 
one  of  the  several  observations  pointing  this  way  (see  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  i45ff.,  156)  will  prove  the  case.  The  hair  at  first  is 
wrought  in  the  semblance  of  actual  hair,  always,  to  be  sure,  with 
a  pleasing  appearance  in  view.  The  artist  who  carved  Plates 
25C  and  26a  had  definite  hair  in  mind  —  note  especially  the 
braids.  He  had  forgotten  his  model  when  he  wrought  con- 
ventional spirals  for  locks  in  Plates  28  and  29,  and  also  when 
he  made  the  braids,  Plate  29,  just  like  the  upper  fold  of  the 
garment  of  his  figure. 

For  a  more  detailed  study  of  these  figures  note  : 

1.  The  evident  desire  on  the  part  of  the  artist  to  show  the 
lines  of  the  nude  body  in  spite  of  the  garment  (Plate  25c)  and 
the  subsequent  neglect  of  everything  but  the  drapery,  Plates 

27ff. 

2.  The  two  styles  of  representing  braids  :   (a)  transverse 
cuts   (Plates   25a   and  28)  ;   (b~)  zigzag  lines  (Plates  26  and 
27).     Most  of  the  earlier  figures  have  three  braids  falling  over 
the  shoulders ;  all  the  latest  have  four. 

3.  The  ways  of  arranging  the  hair  over  the  forehead  :   (a) 
in  parallel  rows  from  temple  to  temple  (Plates  25a,  26b,  27)  ; 
(t>)  changing  the  direction  at  the  sides  (Plates  26aand  25c)  ; 
(<:)  finishing   the   lowest   row  differently,   generally  in  locks 
similar  to  those   on  Plate  29;    (d)    in  converging  rows,  no 
longer  from  side  to  side,  but  from  the  top  of  the  head  down 
to  the  forehead  (Plate  29),  and  ending  each  one  in  a  fancy 
lock;   (e)   breaking  all  the  rows  into  such  locks  (Plate  28), 
for  this  style  compare  the  head  of  Harmodios  (Plate  58)  ; 
(/)   substituting  fanciful  spirals  for  locks  (Plate  30). 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  23 

The  intricacies  of  the  garment  have  recently  been  fully  ex- 
plained  by    Kalkmann,  Jahrbuch   XI,    '96,    pp.    igff.      The       3' 
figures  wear  long  garments,  over  which  they  have  thrown  little 
cloaks.     Only  Plate  30  is  without  the  cloak.     This  view  may  j 
at  first  seem  strange,  owing  to  the  difference  of  folds   into 
which   the  garments  fall  on  the  left  shoulders  and  below  the 
cloaks.     Kalkmann's  arguments,  however,  which  it  would  be 
idle  to  repeat  without  reproducing  all  of  his  illustrations,  are 
conclusive. 

Plate  28  represents  the  largest  of  these  figures.  It  has  been 
joined  to  the  only  colossal  base  that  has  been  found,  and,  on 
the  strength  of  the  name  of  Antenor '  inscribed  on  this  base, 
has  been  assigned  to  this  famous  artist.  The  first  group  of  the  I  >J 
Tyrannicides,  of  which  copies  are  reproduced  on  Plate  58,  was  j 
also  made  by  Antenor.  That  the  head  of  the  Harmodios 
there  bears  some  marked  resemblance  to  the  head  of  this 
statue  from  the  Akropolis  has  been  pointed  out  in  Jahrbuch 
II,  '87,  where  the  two  heads  are  represented  side  by  side  on 
Plate  X.  The  resemblance,  however,  is  not  so  close  that  it 
necessarily  implies  that  both  are  the  work  of  the  same  man, 
and  since,  owing  to  the  fractures  on  the  base  and  at  the  feet 
of  the  statue,  the  union  of  the  statue  and  of  the  base  is  not 
proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  it  is  impossible  to  say  more 
than  that  the  statue  may  be  by  Antenor.  To  affirm  that  it  is 
by  him  is  straining  the  evidence. 

Most  of  these  statues  are  in  so  fragmentary  a  state  of  pres- 
ervation that  it  is  difficult  to  form  an  idea  of  their  original 
pose.  Plate  28  gives  the  best  indication  of  it.  Additional 
suggestions  are  offered  by  the  late  Graeco-Roman  adaptations 
of  this  type. 

1  See  Text  Illustration  3. 


24  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  statues  are  probably  not  images  of  Athena,  as  once 
was  universally  believed.  They  may  be  priestesses.1  They 
were  destroyed  by  the  Persians  in  480  B.  C.,  and  were  used, 
together  with  other  "  rubbish,"  as  filling  material  to  level  the 
surface  of  the  Akropolis.  As  these  fragments  were  carelessly 
thrown  down  in  the  hurried  work  of  rebuilding  the  Akropolis, 
they  .received  additional  fractures.  From  the  fact  that  these 
newly  broken  pieces  were  lying  together  in  regular  order,  some 
scholars  have  drawn  the  conclusion  that  the  Athenians  had 
accorded  them  "  honorable  burial."  If  this  view  were  correct, 
we  should  expect  to  find  the  fragments  of  entire  statues  lying 
together.  This  is,  however,  not  the  case.  The  Persians  were 
satisfied  with  breaking  the  statues  off  their  bases,  which  was 
most  easily  done  where  they  were  thinnest,  that  is  to  say,  at 
the  legs.  This  accounts  for  our  having  found  so  many  upper 
bodies.  What  became  of  the  legs  and  of  the  bases  we  do  not 
know.  For  some  reason  only  a  few  of  them  were  dumped  with 
the  larger  fragments. 

PLATE  31.    Draped  Figures  of  Women  from  Delos.    Of  marble. 

National   Museum,   Athens.      B.   C.   H.,  Ill,  VIII,  XIII;     Gardner, 
pp.  126-127  ;  Reinach  II,  p.  638. 

These  torsi  and  a  number  of  similar  ones  were  found  in 
Delos  during  recent  French  excavations.  They  bear  strong 
resemblances  to  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  2$ff.,  from  which 
they  differ,  however,  as  Gardner  has  indicated  in  two  points.2 

1  For  the  bearing  of  the  interpretation  upon  the  style  of  the  statues 
see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  145  and  156. 

2  Mr.  Gardner's  third  point,  that  the  projecting  arm  in  most  of  them 
is  cut  out  of  the  same  block  with  the  statue  is  not  well  taken.     There 
are,  in  the  first  place,  many  exceptions,  and  secondly,  those,  of  which 
he    speaks,   may  have   been   pieced   so    skilfully    that   the   joint  has 
escaped  his  attention. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  25 

1.  They  are  remarkably  square  in  shape. 

2.  They  show  a  peculiar  treatment  of  their  very  conven- 
tional folds.     The  folds  are  deep  and  thin.     A  saw  has  been 
used  to  make  them,  as  is  clearly  seen  in  one  case.     The  im- 
portance of  this  observation  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  folds  are 
deeper  than  is  necessary  for  effect.     Make  a  very  thin  fold 
two-sixteenths  of  an  inch  deep,  and  you  have  all  the  shadow 
you  can  get.     You  cannot  introduce   a  stronger  shadow  by 
carving  down  to  the  depth  of  an  inch.     No  artist  working  to 
express  his  conception  wastes  his  time  on  tricks  that  add  noth- 
ing to  the  effect.     Only  men  working  with  little  inspiration 
and   along  conventional  lines  do  so.     In  these  Delos  figures 
we  have,  therefore,  another  proof  of  the  danger  which  Greek 
art  ran,  before  the  Persian  wars,  of  growing  conventional,  and 
of  considering  skill  as  of  greater  importance  than  deep  feeling 
and  artistic  design. 

PLATE  32.    Flying  Figure  from  Delos,  erroneously  called  "  Nike 

Of  DelOS."  Of  marble,  probably  Parian.  National  Museum,  Athens. 
Discovered  in  Delos,  in  1879;  *ne  inscription  in  two  pieces  in  1880 
and  1881,  below  life-size.  E.  von  Mach,  H7ff.,  327;  Robinson,  No.  5; 
A.  J.  A.  IV,  'oo,  p.  343;  Kekule  in  Baedeker's  Griechenland,  p.  71  ; 
Reinach  II,  389,  5. 

This  statue  has  been  added  to  a  base  found  in  Delos 
in  two  parts,  and,  by  means  of  an  inscription  on  this  base, 
has  been  assigned  to  Achermos  and  Mikkiades,  two  sculptors 
of  the  school  of  Chios.  The  restoration  has  met  with  strong 
commendation  and  equally  vehement  disapproval.1  Professor 
Wolters'  demonstrations  on  the  original  in  Athens  have  con- 
vinced the  writer  of  the  impossibility,  owing  to  differences  in 
size,  of  an  original  connection  of  statue  and  base.2 

1  For  the  literature  on  this  subject  see  Robinson's  bibliography  to 
No.  5.  2  E.  von  Mash,  p.  327. 


26  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

There  are  fragments  of  wings  on  the  back  and,  near  the 
shoulders,  in  front.  The  restoration,  Text  Illustration  i,  is 
correct,  with  the  exception  of  the  left  foot,  which  doubtless 
touched  the  base  and  thus  gave  additional  support  to  the 
statue. 

Robinson,  voicing  the  opinion  of  those  whom  he  follows  in 
his  catalogue,  dates  the  statue  in  the  seventh  century  B.  C. 
This  would  be  about  as  early  as  —  if  not  earlier  than  —  the 
earliest  "  Apollos,"  Plates  nff.  It  needs  but  one  glance  at 
those  "  Apollos "  to  convince  one  of  the  utter  fallacy  of 
this  view.  There  restraint  and  fear  of  the  heaviness  of  marble 
in  every  line,  here  courage  and  a  certain  amount  of  almost 
foolhardy  daring.  There  the  arms  hardly  cut  loose  from  the 
sides,  here  one  arm  following  an  outspread  wing  without  any 
support  on  the  body,  and  the  other  arm,  with  an  almost  de- 
fiant gesture,  resting  with  one  hand  on  the  hip.1 

Or  contrast  this  figure  with  those  from  Samos  and  Delos, 
Plates  20  and  22,  the  former  of  which  Robinson  dates  early 
in  the  sixth  century,  although  it  is  about  fifty  years  later.  Not 
to  speak  of  the  pose  at  all,  notice  the  difference  in  the  folds, 
the  leg  protruding  from  the  drapery  in  the  Flying  Figure,  its 
accurate  anatomy  and  fine  modelling,  and  its  single  support, 
disguised  as  a  wing. 

And  finally,  look  at  the  face  and  the  treatment  of  the  hair. 
Notice  the  artificial  spirals  taking  the  place  of  curls  over 
the  middle  of  the  forehead,  and  remember  the  long  course 
of  development  that  had  preceded  similar  spirals  in  the  Akro- 
polis  figures,  Plates  25-30. 

Of  all  these  many  points  there  is  not  one  that  does  not 
point  to  an  origin  of  the  statue  late  in  the  sixth  century, 
while  the  seemingly  awkward  pose  by  no  means  contradicts  it. 

1  Compare  Oinomaos  from  Olympia,  Plate  84au 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


27 


That  the  skill  falls  short  of  doing  justice  to  the  artist's  in- 
tention is  not  surprising.  The  man  who  designed  this  figure 
was  ahead  of  his  time.  Without  prototypes  to  guide  him  he 
desired  to  represent  motion,1  not  only  on  firm  ground  but 
through  space.  He  did  not  know  how  to  do  it.  The  im- 
portant thing,  however,  is  that  he  wanted  to  do  it ;  he  thought 
it  could  be  done,  and  he  actually  attempted  to  do  it.  Can  we 
believe  this  of  a  contemporary  of  the  early  "  Apollo  "  figures? 
Certainly  not ! 

For  a  further  detailed   study  of  the   statue   the   following 
points  are  essential : 

1.  The  broad  stripe  on  the  drapery,  once  painted  in  im- 
itation of  embroidery,  for  which  compare  Plates  21  and  29, 
to    the    former   of  which   the   garment   bears  a  rather  close 
resemblance. 

2.  The  upper  part  of  the  body  is  not  nude.     The  drapery 
is  merely  close  fitting.     It  was  painted  in  a  pattern  that  had 
left  its   traces   in  an  unevenness  of  corrosion  clearly  visible 
when  the  statue  was  found. 

3.  The  features  :  the  pleasing  mouth,  and  the  difficulty  the 
artist  had  in  "  putting  it  in  the  face."2 

4.  The  adaptability  of  the  figure  to  an  akroterion,  as  Treu 
has    suggested.     Akroteria  were    the  decorations,  not   always 
figures,  but  also  large  vases  and  the  like,  on  the  four  corners 
of  a  temple  roof  and  on  the  two  highest  points  of  the  gables. 
The  proof  of  the  accuracy  of  Treu's  view  is  at  the  same  time 
a  proof  of  the  impossibility  of  connecting  the  statue  with  the 
base. 

5.  The   resemblance    of  the    typs    of  this  figure    to    the 


1  For  the  problem  of  motion,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  ii6ff. 

2  This  is  an  ancient  Greek  expression,  cf.    Lukian  Imag.      4:  Over- 
beck  S.  Q.    No.  768. 


2 8  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

so-called  Oriental  Artemis  with  wings,  as  she  appears  on  the 
bronze  relief  from  Olympia,Text  Illustration  5.  This  makes 
it  probable  that  the  figure  from  Delos  is  an  "  Artemis."  I 

PLATE  33.     Bronze  Nike.     British  Museum,  London. 

The  importance  of  this  statuette  and  of  the  figure,  Text 
Illustration  2,  lies  in  the  daring  of  their  conceptions,  com- 
parable, and  in  one  case  even  superior,  to  that  of  the  figure 
from  Delos,  Plate  32.  The  Text  Illustration  2,  bears  the 
same  relation  to  the  Akropolis  statues,  Plates  253".,  as  the 
Delian  flying  goddess  bears  to  the  statue  from  Delos,  Plate  32. 

PLATE  34.  Athena.  Bronze  Statuette.  Akropolis  Museum, 
Athens.  Beaten  out  of  two  sheets  of  bronze  joined  in  the  centre, 
both  sides  alike,  but  one  reversing  the  other.  Reinach  II,  799,  3. 

PLATE  35.  Athena  PromachOS.  Small  bronze  statuette.  Akro- 
polis Museum,  Athens.  Reinach  II,  285,  8. 

In  these  statuettes  two  archaic  types  of  Athena  are  pre- 
served. Plate  34  shows  one  of  the  earliest  Athenas  at  rest ; 
Plate  35  shows  the  same  goddess  leading  her  people  to  vic- 
tory, "Athena  fighting  for  us,"  Promachos.  The  freedom  of 
pose  of  the  latter  statuette,  remarkable  even  for  bronze  (cf. 
Plate  17),  suggests  a  date  not  much  anterior  to  the  Persian 
wars.  This  would  make  it  contemporaneous  with  the  latest 
of  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25-30,  to  the  style  of  whose 
draperies  its  own  garments  correspond. 

The  big  stride  of  Athena  is  unusual,  women  generally  being 
represented,  in  contrast  to  men,  as  stepping  most  delicately. 
This  is  well  seen  on  Plates  28  and  54.  The  exception  here  is 
due  to  Athena's  following  the  pursuit  of  men,  —  war.  The 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  name,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  iijff. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


29 


fragment  on  her  left  arm  indicates  the  now  lost  shield,  while 
in  her  raised  right  hand  we  may  supply  the  spear. 

The  other  Athena  is  older,  as  is  clearly  shown,  first,  by  the 
greater  restraint  of  her  pose,  in  spite  of  the  certain  amount  of 
freedom   in  her  arm ;    and   secondly,   by   the  excessive  care 
which  is  bestowed  upon  her  drapery,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  ac- 
cessory rather  than  on  the  goddess  herself.     The  technique, 
two  metal  plates  joined  to  represent  one  figure,  is  remarkable, 
if  not  unique.     It  is  probably  the  survival  of  a  very  ancient 
custom.     Diodoros  '   relates  a  tradition,  according  to  which 
Telekles  and  Theodores  of  Samos  had  fashioned  the  image  of 
Apollo   at   Samos  jointly,   so   that   one   half   was   made   by 
Telekles   in   Samos,    while   the   other   half  was   wrought   by   * 
Theodoros  in  Ephesos.     The  two  halves  fitted  exactly.2    This  j  _,     •'  •  (^ 
story  probably  had  its  origin  in  works  like  this  Athena,  which  \ 
of  necessity,  had  to  be  made  of  two  separate  parts. 

PLATE  36.    Seated  Figures  from  Branchidai,  near  Miletos.    Of 

unidentifiable  marble.  British  Museum.  British  Museum  Catalogue 
I,  pp.  i6ff.,  where  the  inscription  on  the  statue  of  Chares  is  repro- 
duced in  facsimile.  Robinson,  No,^j6T  Overbeck  I,  pp.  looff. ; 
Reinach  II,  629,  2. 

These  figures,  together  with  many  more,  were  discovered  in 
1765,  but  not  before  1858  were  those  that  had  not  been  car- 
ried away  by  the  natives  removed  to  the  British  Museum. 
They  are  seven  male  and  three  female  figures,  and,  in  addi- 


1  Overbeck  I,  98.     S.  Q.,  279. 

2  The  conclusion  which  Diodoros  draws  from  this  tradition,  namely, 
that  the  statue  was  a  work  in  imitation  of  Egyptian  statues,  where  both 
halves  of  the  figure  were  exactly  alike,  is  of  course  wrong.     Even  in 
that  style  no  two  artists  could  have  made  one  statue  as  here  descibed. 


30  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tion,  two  lions,  one  with  an  interesting  inscription,  one  male 
and  one  female  head  and  a  relief.1 

The  seated  figures  once  flanked  a  sacred  way  that  led  from 
the  harbor  Panormos  to  the  temple  of  Apollo,  situated  in  a 
district  that  had  received  its  name  from  the  priestly  clan  that 
officiated  in  it,  the  Branchidai.  The  temple,  which  was  not 
far  from  Miletos,  was  destroyed  by  Darius,  probably  about  495 
B.  C.  From  this  fact,  and  from  certain  peculiarities  of  the 
preserved  inscriptions,  the  statues  have  been  dated  approxi- 
mately as  between  580  and  520  B.  C.  Granting  that  other 
statues  were  erected  later  than  520  B.  C.,  these  have  now  been 
irretrievably  lost.2  Changes  that  took  place  in  the  Greek 
alphabet  at  about  550  B.  C.  have  enabled  scholars  to  divide 
the  extant  statues  into  two  groups.  The  Chares,  as  he  is 
known  from  the  inscription  at  the  right  side  of  this  throne,  be- 
longs to  the  group  subsequent  to  550  B.  C.  The  suggestion 
that  he  is  one  of  the  local  tyrants  who  were  established  after 
the  fall  of  Kroisos,  546  B.  C.,  deserves  attention.  The  in- 
scription reads,  "  Chares  am  I,  son  of  Kleisis,  ruler  of  Teichi- 
oussa.  The  statue  is  the  property  of  Apollo." 

Liibke  describes  the  entire  series  as  follows 3 :  "They  are 
sitting  stiff  and  immovable,  with  their  arms  pressed  against 
their  bodies  and  their  hands  resting  on  their  knees.  Their 
proportions  are  heavy,  almost  clumsy  ;  broad  shoulders,  power- 
fully rounded  contours,  breasts  very  high,  and  in  the  women 
very  full.  The  treatment  throughout  is  influenced  by  a  love 


1  These  heads  give  clear  indications  of  former  painting.     Neither 
lids  nor  eyes  recede,  their  position  being  marked  by  slightly  incised 
lines,  ready  to  receive  the  distinguishing  paint. 

2  A  suggestion  of  the  style  of  the  now  lost  statues  may  be  obtained 
from  a  seated  statue  from  Miletos  now  in  the  Louvre,  Paris.     Reinach 
II,  682,  5,  and  683,  I.     3  Liibke,  Geschichte  der  Plastik,  p.  93. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


31 


of  masses  rather  than  by  a  feeling  for  the  organic  structure  of  a 
human  body.  Fingers  and  toes,  although  correctly  indicated, 
are  slighted  in  the  execution.  The  only  preserved  head  « 
shows  full,  broad,  and  rounding  contours." 

Not  stopping  to  note  details,  Liibke  has  omitted  to  call 
attention  to  the  gradual  development  that  has  taken  place 
in  these  figures.  It  is  most  readily  followed  in  the  draperies. 
In  the  earliest  there  are  no  folds  indicated  worthy  of  men- 
tion. The  drapery  of  Chares  follows  very  much  the  same 
pattern,  but  on  the  broad  masses  of  the  heavy  garment  actual 
folds  are  carved,  of  which  those  on  the  folded  strip  falling  over 
the  knee  are  the  best.  In  the  latest  extant  figure, Text  Illus- 
tration 4,  the  garment  follows  the  lines  of  the  body,  it 
even  clings  to  it,  so  that  the  legs  have  the  appearance  of  being 
nude.  But  even  this  statue  is  far  from  being  lifelike.  What 
has  been  correctly  said  of  the  Chares  also  applies  to  it.  "  He 
is  doomed  to  an  eternal  seated  posture ;  one  cannot  think  of 
him  as  getting  up  from  his  throne."  To  see  the  force  of  this 
remark  one  need  only  compare  him  with  the  seated  Athena, 
Plate  37.  For  other  early  seated  figures  see  the  Spartan 
tombstones  below. 

PLATE  37.  Seated  Athena.  Of  marble.  Akropolis  Museum. 
Above  life  size.  It  is  not  known  where  and  when  the  statue  was  found. 
It  was  first  seen,  and  sketched  among  the  debris  lying  below  the  north 
wall  of  the  Akropolis.  Overbeck  I,  pp.  igoff. ;  Robinson,  No.  34; 
Reinach  II,  296,  3. 

Although  badly  damaged,  this  statue  retains  the  breath  of 
life  that  distinguished  it  from  other  early  seated  figures,  nota- 
bly the  Chares,  Plate  36.  One  instinctively  feels  that  Athena 
has  sat  down,  and  that  she  can,  and  will  rise  again.  A  slight 

1  Liibke  means  preserved  on  the  figures ;  for  separate  heads  see 
above. 


32  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

technical  device  helps  this  illusion  ;  it  is  the  right  foot  drawn 
back.  The  same  device  recurs  on  the  East  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon,  Plate  136,  where  it  is  supplemented  by  a  delicate 
forward  inclination  of  the  body.  Here  the  opposite  is  the 
case.  Athena,  as  is  seen  in  the  profile  view,  leans  back,  prob- 
ably in  order  to  render  the  execution  of  a  pleasing  front  view 
easier. 

The  right  foot  is  much  larger  than  was  the  left,  only  half  of 
which  is  preserved.  This  is  no  accident.  The  sculptor  had 
observed  that  objects  appear  smaller  the  further  they  are  away 
from  the  spectator,  but  being  unaware  not  only  of  the  subtle 
principle  of  foreshortening  but  also  of  the  allowances  which 
the  human  eye  compels  the  true  artist  to  make  to  its  peculi- 
arities,1 he  endeavored  to  correct  the  defects  of  vision,  but  did 
not  know  how  to  do  it.  His  reasoning  may  have  been  some- 
thing like  this  :  "  Further  objects  appear  to  be  smaller  than 
those  close  at  hand.  The  right  foot  is  further  away.  There- 
fore I  must  carve  it  larger,  so  that  it  may  appear  to  be 
as  large  as  the  other  foot,  for  the  spectator  knows  the 
feet  to  be  of  equal  size."  The  fallacy  of  such  reasoning 
is  self-evident  to  the  modern  student.  It  is  interesting,  how- 
ever, as  throwing  much  light  on  the  gradual  evolution  of 
art,  from  its  first  beginnings  to  the  present  day.  First,  an  ap- 
peal to  the  knowledge  of  the  spectator ;  later  an  appeal  to  his 
vision.  The  sculptor  of  this  Athena  still  felt  it  his  duty  to 
address  himself  to  the  knowledge  of  his  public,  although  he 
had  begun  to  study  the  peculiarities  of  their  vision. 

The  aegis  worn  by  this  statue  is  very  large.  Robinson's  re- 
mark that  this  is  a  distinguishing  feature  of  archaic  art  is 
hardly  correct,  as  a  glance  at  Plates  34  and  35,  and  at  the 
many  Athena  statues  reproduced  in  Reinach,  Repertoire,  Vols. 

'See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  6ofL,  127^.,  p.  ijtt. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


33 


I  and  II,  show.1  Attached  to  the  holes  near  the  edge  of  the 
aegis  were  writhing  snakes  of  bronze,  and  on  the  boss  in  the 
centre  a  Medusa2  was  painted.  Noteworthy  is  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  chair  to  the  figure  sitting  in  it,  which  is  in  strong 
contrast  to  the  Chares,  Plate  36.  A  similar  contrast  exists  be- 
tween the  East  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon  and  the  frieze  of  the 
"Harpy"  tomb,  Plate  53. 

The  speculation  of  some  writers  as  to  the  identification  of 
this  statue  with  an  old  artist,  Endoios,  who  is  said  to  have 
made  a  seated  Athena  for  the  Akropolis  of  Athens,  and  whose 
name,  inscribed  on  a  base,  has  actually  been  found  there,  is 
especially  idle  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  not  definitely  known 
that  our  Athena  statue  ever  was  erected  on  the  Akropolis.  It 
turned  up  first  among  debris  below  the  north  wall,  but  how  it 
got  there  is  a  mystery. 

PLATE  38.  Sphinx  from  Spata.  Of  marble,  below  life  size. 
National  Museum,  Athens.  F.  W.,  103;  Kavvadias,  28;  Reinach 
II,  704,  4. 

Although  the  representation  of  Sphinxes  was  very  popular 
with  the  Greeks,  it  has  not  yet  been  possible  to  explain  fully 
the  Greek  belief  in  the  existence  of  such  beings.3  The  Sphinx 
in  the  legend  of  Oidipous,  uttering  riddles,  is  a  solitary  and 
probably  later  variant.  Generally  the  Sphinx  herself  was 
synonymous  with  the  riddles  and  mysteries  of  life,  the  greatest 
of  which  is  the  seeming  cessation  of  it  —  death.  The  Sphinx, 

'The  seated  Athena  statuette  from  Delos  (Reinach  II,  p.  296,  4) 
is  especially  interesting.  The  aegis  there  (not  well  seen  in  the  picture) 
is  small  and  straight. 

2 For  early  Medusa  heads  see  below;  for  a  discussion  of  Medusa 
heads,  Rev.  Arch.,  1896,  Vol.  28.  3By  far  the  best  account  of  Sphinxes 
is  given  "Baumeister,  pp.  i688ff. 


34  GKEEJt  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

therefore,  is  frequently  found  on  grave  reliefs.  Her  tradition- 
ally beautiful  face  was  in  keeping  with  the  cheerful  view  of 
death  which  characterized  the  Greeks. 

In  contrast  to  the  Egyptian  Sphinx,  which  generally  is  male, 
the  Greek  Sphinx,  like  the  Oriental,  is  female.  Her  face  is 
always  human,  but  in  the  rest  of  her  body  the  animal  parts 
preponderate  almost  as  frequently  as  the  human.  Some  of 
her  representations,  owing  largely  to  the  wings  of  the  bird, 
which  are  uniformly  hers,  bear  close  resemblance  to  those  of 
the  sirens  which  also  appear  on  grave  monuments. 

An  immediate  borrowing  of  the  archaic  Greek  type  of  the 
Sphinx  from  the  Egyptian,  following,  it  is  said,  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Greek  colony  in  Naukratis  in  the  middle  of 
the  seventh  century,  is  the  less  likely,  as  Sphinxes  have  been 
found  in  tombs  in  Mykenai  and  in  Sparta.1 

In  view  of  the  above  observations,  it  is  probable  that  the 
Sphinx  now  in  Athens  once  decorated  a  tomb.  The  back  and 
the  upper  part  of  the  figure'  are  not  well  finished,  pointing  to 
a  position  on  the  top  of  a  monument,  where  the  Sphinx  was 
seen  from  below  and  only  from  the  front.  The  face  shows  a 
resemblance  to  the  "Apollo"  types,  Plates  uff.,  especially  in 
the  eyes,  but  with  everything  harsh  toned  down  to  great  mild- 
ness. The  mouth  reveals  the  conventional  curve,2  but  the  ex- 
pression of  the  face  is  one  of  severe  beauty. 

Numerous  traces  of  paint  were  found  on  this  Sphinx,  red 
and  dark  green  on  the  feathers,  brown  in  the  hair,  while  the 
outlines  of  three  rosettes  could  still  be  distinguished  on  the 
diadem,  when  the  statue  was  discovered. 


1  Athen.  Mittheilungen  II,  pp.  265*!,  IV,  pp.  4Sff. 

2  For  the  meaning  of  this  curve  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


Temple  Sculptures  and  Reliefs  of  the  Archaic  Period. 

A  few  of  the  monuments  here  discussed,  notably  Plate  42,  Athena 
and  the  Giant,  are  not  reliefs,  but  they,  too,  are  designed  to  be  seen 
against  the  background  of  a  pediment  wall,  and  find  their  place, 
therefore,  most  properly  with  reliefs. 

The  much  mooted  question  of  the  priority  of  reliefs  or  of  detached 
sculpture  in  the  round  is  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  proof  either  way. 
Greek  reliefs  as  such  have  recently  received  much  attention.  The 
mention  of  a  few  discussions  will  suffice;  for  they  again  contain  refer- 
ences to  all  the  important  articles  on  the  subject.  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  37ff. ;  Conze,  Ueber  das  Relief  bei  den  Griechen,  Sitzungsberichte 
der  Berliner  Akademie  1882,  pp.  563^?. ;  T.  Kopp,  Der  Urspring  des 
Hochreliefs  bei  den  Griechen,  fahrbuch  II,  pp.  n8ff. 

PLATE  39.  Reliefs  from  ASSOS.  Of  dark  gray  Anachyte.  Louvre, 
Paris.  Discovered  1838  in  Assos.  Additional  pieces  were  discovered 
1881-1883  by  the  first  American  Archaeological  Expedition,  and  also 
in  1896,  and  are  preserved  in  Boston  and  in  Constantinople.  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  66»  133;  F.  W.  Nos.  8-12;  Robinson  No.  17;  Investiga- 
tions at  Assos,  the  official  publication  of  the  Archaeological  Institute 
of  America,  Part  i  (ready) ;  A.  J.  A.  '97,  Plate  XXVII  and  p.  508, 
fig.  i  ;  Reinach  I,  6  and  7. 

These  reliefs  are  unique  as  being  sculptured  decorations  of 
the  architrave  of  a  Doric  temple.  Generally  the  frieze  was^ 
thus  decorated.  The  date  assigned  to  these  reliefs  varies 
considerably,  from  Friedrichs-Wolters,  the  seventh  century, 
to  Joseph  Th.  Clark1  the  fifth  century  later  than  479.  This 
latter  date  is  arrived  at  from  a  comparison  of  architect- 
ural details  with  the  Theseion  in  Athens,  and  is  so  utterly 
baseless  in  view  of  the  style  of  the  reliefs  that  it  has  been 

1  In  his  report  of  the  investigations  at  Assos,  p.  104. 


3  6  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

wisely  neglected  of  late.  Only  Robinson  discusses  it  seri- 
ously, although  he  does  not  accept  it. 

The  very  early  date  which  has  had  many  supporters,  is  not 
less  inaccurate.  The  great  freedom  of  action  in  the  scene  of 
Herakles  struggling  with  the  "  old  man  from  the  sea,"  the 
skill  with  which  this  old  man  is  represented  as  slipping  away, 
and  the  knowledge  of  anatomy  revealed  in  Herakles,  all  dis- 
prove it.  It  is  impossible  to  think  of  any  of  the  old  "  Apollo  " 
sculptors  as  capable  of  carving  such  a  work,  even  if  the 
technique  in  relief  offered  fewer  material  difficulties,1  for  it 
made,  on  the  other  hand,  new  demands  upon  the  ingenuity 
of  the  artist,  who  was  confronted  by  the  problem  of  grouping 
his  figures  and  of  filling  the  space.  In  both  these  directions 
the  Assos  reliefs  do  not  appear  to  mark  the  very  beginning 
of  work  along  new  lines.  The  group  of  the  struggle  between 
Herakles  and  the  monster  is  exquisitely  well  designed,  and  the 
reclining  men  on  the  other  slab  are  by  no  means  bad.  The 
proper  disposition  of  so  many  figures,  however,  was  beyond 
the  means  of  the  Assos  sculptors.  They  had  begun  to  feel 
the  importance  of  "  isokephalism," 2  but  did  not  know  how 
to  do  it  justice.  Placing  the  heads  of  all  the  figures  on  the 
same  level,  they  created  truly  ludicrous  pictures.  The  little 
waiter  and  the  "nymphs"  are  far  too  small  in  proportion  to 
the  reclining  and  to  the  struggling  figures. 

Another  argument  against  the  very  early  date  of  the  reliefs 
is  found  in  the  shape  of  the  centaurs4enjoying  the  use  of  four 
horses'  legs,  which  is  the  regular  fashion  all  through  the  classic 
period.  Originally  3  centaurs  were  represented  as  men,  with 
only  the  bodies  and  hind  legs  of  horses  attached  to  the  small 
of  their  backs.  One  such  primitive  centaur,  it  is  true,  was 

*E.  von  Mach,  p.  124.  2For  isokephalism  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  65  and 
'33-  3  We  know  this  from  vase  paintings  and  from  early  sculptures, 
see  Reinach  II,  692.  4For  these  centaurs  see  Reinach  I,  6. 


3-       BASE    OF    ANTENOR    STATUE. 


4.       BRANCHIDAI   FIGURE 


5.       ORIENTAL   ARTHMIS.      CAST  FROM   BRONZE. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


37 


found  in  Assos  in  the  American  excavations  of  1881-1883, 
but  this  is  of  little  importance,  for  it  is  the  most  advanced, 
and  not  the  conservative  type,  which  is  decisive  for  the  date 
of  a  relief.1  The  existence,  however,  of  the  two  types  side 
by  side  is  interesting ;  for  although  the  "  man  centaur "  pos- 
sibly belongs  to  another  set  of  decorations,  it  more  probably 
shows  that  sculptors  of  a  less  and  a  more  progressive  temper 
were  engaged  together  in  executing  the  reliefs.  This  we  know 
was  also  the  case  on  the  Parthenon. 

Very  instructive  is  the  demeanor  of  the  frightened  nymphs 
beating  their  hasty  retreat.  Compared  with  the  subdued 
action  which  we  meet  on  most  reliefs2  of  the  archaic  period 
their  excessive  activity  seems  to  suggest  a  great  advance. 
But  this  is  not  the  case.  "  Nothing  to  excess  "  was  the  motto 
of  the  Greeks,  written  in  large  letters  on  the  temple  at  Delphi, 
and  "  nothing  to  excess  "  is  characteristic  of  the  best  Greek 
work  in  sculpture.  A  warning  like  this,  however,  never  is 
uttered  except  when  the  natural  tendencies  of  a  people  pull 
it  in  the  other  direction.  The  noble  restraint  of  Greek  sculpt- 
ure is  not  achieved  without  a  struggle ;  it  is  the  conscious 
subduement  of  a  restless  temper.  The  violent  movement  of 
the  nymphs,  therefore,  do^ot  contradict  the  origin  of  this 
relief  in  the  sixth  century,  while  the  excellent  composition  of 
the  struggle  scene  makes  it  unlikely  that  the  composition  was 
carved  earlier  than  the  best  of  the  Branchidai  figures,  Plate  36, 
that  is  between  580  and  520  B.  C. 

For  the  detailed  study  of  these  reliefs  note  : 

i.  The  oblong  blocks  at  the  upper  edge  of  the  reliefs. 
They  are  the  regulae  which  fitted  under  the  triglyphs  of  the 
frieze,  and  prove  that  these  slabs  composed  the  architrave. 

'See  Overbeck  I,  p.  109.  2 Compare  especially  the  reliefs  from 
Thasos,  Plate  54. 


38  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

(For  the  explanation  of  the  architectural  terms  see  the  restora- 
tion of  the  temple  at  Aigina,  Text  Illustration  13.) 

2.  The  unconcern  about  balancing   the  figures.     There  is 
no  symmetry  in  the  composition.     Contrast  the  Assos  reliefs 
with  those  from  Thasos,  Plate  54. 

3.  The  remarkable  tenacity  of  the  old  man  who  continues 
to  hold  his  symbol,  the  fish,  in  his  hand  in  spite  of  his  struggle 
with  Herakles.     Contrast  the  entire  group  with  the  similar 
one  from  Athens,  Plate  4ob. 

4.  Compare  the  centaur  with  the  centaurs  from  Olympia, 
Plates  87,  89,  and  the  large  cups  in  the  hands  of  the  reclining 
figures  with  the  cups  on  the  Spartan  tombstones,  Plate  36  ya, 

PLATE  40a.  Herakles  and  the  Hydra.  Of  coarse  limestone 
(Poros).  Pedimental  group  from  the  Akropolis.  Akropolis  Museum, 
Athens.  Overbeck  I,  fig.  33. 

PLATE  40b.  Herakles  and  the  Triton.  Of  soft  limestone  (Poros). 
Pedimental  group  from  the  Akropolis.  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens. 
Overbeck  I,  fig.  34.  cf.  fig.  36. 

Fragmentary  to  the  extreme,  these  reliefs  are  yet  important 
as  the  earliest  discovered  monuments  of  Athens.  Plate  4oa 
is  carved  in  very  low  relief  in  a  coarse  soft  stone,  which  is 
found  on  a  little  island  in  the  Peiraios  harbor.  This  stone, 
called  Poros,  is  the  worst  imaginable  material  for  sculpture, 
offering  an  unpleasant  appearance,  and  containing  numberless 
little  shells  embedded  in  the  rather  soft  lime  of  which  it  is 
composed.  It  is  little  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  Greeks 
covered  it  almost  completely  with  paint.  This,  some  people 
say,  was  the  beginning  of  the  coloring  of  sculpture,1  first  a 
necessity  owing  to  the  homely  material,  later  a  habit  difficult 
to  break,  although  the  finest  marble  was  used.  There  is  force 

1  For  the  coloring  of  statues  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  67ff. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


39 


in  this  argument,  which  is  not  easily  refuted,  and  yet  it  cannot 
be  correct.  It  starts  with  the  presumption  that  the  painting 
of  statues  is  an  anomaly ;  that  the  Greeks,  therefore,  resorted 
to  it  in  spite  of  their  better  instincts.  That  they  should  have 
submitted  to  a  distasteful  necessity  in  the  archaic  period  is 
in  keeping  with  the  facts.1  Their  inability  to  break  an  un- 
worthy habit,  however,  in  the  subsequent  generations  is  so 
strongly  against  the  weight  of  the  evidence2  that  it  is  inad- 
missible as  an  argument.  With  this  second  link  in  the  chain 
useless,  the  first  loses  much  of  its  probability,  and  we  are 
forced  to  believe  that  the  Greeks  used  color  because  they 
wanted  to  use  it,  and  not  because  they  had  to.  The  selection 
of  such  a  poor  material  as  the  Peiraios  Poros  loses  much  of 
its  mystery  under  this  assumption,  because  why  not  use  any 
kind  of  a  material  which  is  easily  carved  if  it  will  have  to  be 
covered  with  paint  anyhow  U  The  possible  objection  that  if 
this  was  true  we  might  expect  to  find  Poros  used  all  through 
the  classic  period  is  not  well  taken,  because  the  softness  of 
Poros  prevented  the  delicacy  of  modelling  which  later  artists 
desired  to  introduce. 

In  this  relief  we  meet  for  the  first  time  a  triangular  gable 
space  which  is  to  be  filled  with  a  composition.  The  problems 
which  such  a  task  offers  are  many .4  The  Athenian  artist  has 
acquitted  himself  rather  well.  Only  once,  in  the  diminutive 
size  of  the  chariot,  his  resortful  imagination  has  failed  him. 
Splendidly  conceived  are  the  horses,  who  had  to  lower  their 
heads  in  conformity  with  the  narrowing  corner  of  the  pedi- 
ment. Yet  so  well  is  this  motive  introduced  that  one  forgets 
the  limitation  of  space.  The  large  crab,  which,  according  to 


1  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  logff.  2E.  von  Mach,  p.  159.  3  For  the  technique 
of  this  relief,  which  can  be  studied  only  from  the  original,  see  Over- 
beck  I,  p.  181.  4E.  von  Mach,  pp.  iSoff. 


40  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tradition,  approached  to  assist  the  Hydra  against  Herakles,  is 
seen  advancing  from  the  corner,  and  with  true  equine  curiosity 
the  idle  horses  stretch  their  necks  to  smell  of  the  slowly  ap- 
proaching guest.  The  hundred-headed  snake  (Hydra)  well 
fills  the  other  half  of  the  pediment.  Snakes  can  assume 
almost  any  position  without  doing  violence  to  natural  sem- 
blance.1 

The  difference  in  size  between  Herakles  and  his  charioteer 
may  be  explained  on  the  ground  of  the  physical  development 
of  the  hero.  It  may,  however,  also  be  due  to  the  different 
height  of  the  space  which  the  two  figures  had  to  fill. 

The  color  on  the  relief  was  in  a  good  state  of  preservation 
when  the  slab  was  discovered.  There  were,  however,  some 
spots  that  showed  the  natural  light  brown  of  the  stone.  It  is 
probable  that  here  the  paint  had  worn  off.  The  colors  used 
are  various  shades  of  pink,  black  and  red. 

Plate  4ob  is  one  of  two  similar  groups  representing  the 
struggle  between  Herakles  and  the  so-called  Triton,  the  old 
man  from  the  sea.  One  of  them,  facing  the  spectator's  left, 
may  be  a  companion  piece  to  Herakles  and  the  Hydra,  that  is 
to  say,  it  may  have  filled  the  other  pediment  of  the  same  tem- 
ple. The  second,  facing  the  other  way,  was  a  companion 
piece  to  the  Typhon  group,  Plate  41  a.  Both  groups  are 
extremely  fragmentary,  but  they  offer  interesting  points  of 
comparison  with  the  similar  subject  treated  on  the  Assos  re- 
liefs, Plate  39. 

PLATE  41  a.    The  Typhon,  Pedimental  Group  from  the  Akropolis 

Of  Athens.  Of  fine  hard  limestone.  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens. 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1785. ;  Overbeck  I,  fig.  35;  colored  reproduction 
Antike  Denkmdler  I,  PI.  30. 

*E.  von  Mach,  pp.  I7gff. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  4! 

The  better  character  of  this  stone,  although  it  also  is  a  kind 
of  Poros,  enabled  the  sculptor  to  carve  his  group  almost  in 
the  round.  The  quality  of  a  high  relief,  however,  is  not  lost, 
because  the  Typhon  is  well  finished  on  the  front  side  only. 
Its  coloring  r  is  peculiar,  and  has  given  the  figure  the  name 
"  Blue  Beard." 

The  character  representation  of  this  three-headed  monster 
has  so  completely  engrossed  the  attention  of  the  sculptor  that 
he  has  failed  to  represent  the  Typhon  in  a  posture  adequate  ! 
to  his  imputed   action.     He  is   fighting  with  Zeus,  for  such  I    ' 
was  the  meaning  of  the  group,  as  is  attested  to  by  other  frag-    I 
ments.2     Three  centuries  later  we  meet  with  a  similar  struggle 
between  Zeus  and  a  snake-bodied  monster  on  the  altar  from 
Pergamon  (see  below).     A  comparison  *  of  these  two   monu- 
ments clearly  reveals  the  lines  along  which  Greek  sculpture 
developed. 

PLATE  41  b.  Bull  Attacked  by  Lions.4  Of  limestone  profusely 
painted.  Colossal  group  in  relief  from  the  Akropolis.  Akropolis 
Museum,  Athens.  Overbeck  I,  p.  185,  fig.  37. 

This  remarkably  powerful  composition  is  described  by 
Overbeck  in  these  words s :  "It  is  impossible  to  think  of 
this  group  in  connection  with  a  pediment;  for  the  relief 
was,  doubtless,  of  rectangular  dimensions.  Its  subject  is  one 
of  the  oldest,  and  is  frequently  found  on  vases  from  Mykenai 
and  other  old  monuments.  Here  it  is  treated  with  truly 

1  E.  von  Mach,  p.  178.  2See  the  restoration  of  the  group.  Over- 
beck  I,  fig.  35.  3  Another  interesting  comparison  is  between  the 
Typhon  relief  and  the  old  Attic  Nestos  Vase.  Antike  Denkmaler  I, 
PI.  57.  4  Compare  fragment  of  two  bulls  overpowered  by  lions  from 
Kyzicus.  A.J.  A.,  VIII,  1904,  p.  101.  Date  toward  end  of  sixth  cen- 
tury, B.  C.  s  Free  translation  of  Overbeck  I,  p.  185. 


42  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

surprising  vigor.  The  mighty  bull,  painted  blue,  is  borne 
down  by  two  lions,  his  head  pressed  to  the  ground,  while  the 
claws  of  his  aggressors  penetrate  his  skin,  and  from  his 
wounds  the  blood  flows  forth  in  streams.  The  head  of  the. 
bull  and  the  muscular  legs  of  the  lions  belong  to  the  most 
glorious  creations  of  early  Greek  art."1 

PLATE  42.  Athena  and  Giant.  Of  marble.  Pedimental  group 
from  the  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  Studniczka.  Athen.  Mitt., 
1886,  pp.  i85ff.;  Reinach  II,  800,  6. 

The  head  of  this  Athena  was  found  in  1863,  while  the  re- 
maining fragments  were  found  in  1882.  They  were  put  to- 
gether a  few  years  later  by  Studniczka,  who  suggests  with 
much  probability  that  they  formed  the  center  of  one  of  the 
pediments  of  the  temple  2  of  Athena,  enlarged  by  Peisistratos 
soon  after  550  B.  C.  This  date  seems  to  accord  with  the 
style  of  the  group.  The  three  braids  (not  four)  falling  over 
the  shoulder  of  the  goddess  correspond  with  the  earlier  of  the 
Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25-30.  For  the  rest  one  must  not 
compare  this  head  too  closely  with  those  of  the  Akropolis 
figures,  because  it  was  designed  to  be  seen  at  a  considerable 
height,  while  they  were  to  be  seen  close  at  hand.  This  may 
account  for  the  fullness  of  the  lips,  which,  near  by,  seem  al- 
most voluptuous.  The  rather  short  face  may  be  an  allowance 
to  the  tilt  of  the  head,  and  be  due  to  the  unwillingness  of  the 
sculptor  to  have  the  chin  appear  less  distinct  when  further 
removed  from  view.3 


1  For  some  statutes  of   women   carved  in   Poros  see   Rev.    Arch., 

1891,  Pis.  XI  and  XII.  2For  the  temple  see  Dorpfeld.     Atken.  Mitt., 

1886,  pp.  3ioff.     3  The  long  eyelids  are  due  in  part  to  the  downward 
glance  of  Athena. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


43 


The  grouping  of  the  figures  has  given  considerable  trouble 
to  the  artist,  but  it  is  not  bad.  Even  today  we,  accustomed 
to  seeing  perfect  battle  scenes,  are  impressed  with  the  force 
of  the  goddess  and  the  impotence  of  the  defeated  giant.  A 
similar  arrangement  of  Athena  and  a  fallen  warrior  occurs  on 
the  pediment  of  Aigina,  Plate  83.'  There,  however,  the  man 
is  dead,  killed,  it  seems,  by  the  other  warriors,  while  the 
goddess  is  impassively  present.  In  harmony  of  lines  the 
Aigina  group  surpasses  the  old  Athenian  pediment,  while  it 
falls  short  of  it  in  vigor  and  in  interest. 

If  one  approaches  archaic  Greek  sculpture,  as  many  do, 
with  the  preconceived  notion  that  it  is  as  weak  in  conception 
as  it  is  inexperienced  in  execution,  one  is  constantly  surprised 
by  its  virility,  for  it  bears  indeed  the  germs  from  which  sprang 
the  later  masterpieces. 

PLATE  43a.    Metopes  of  the  Treasury  of  Sikyon  in  Delphi.    Of 

marble.     Museum  in  Delphi. 

PLATE  43b.  Frieze  from  a  Treasury  (possibly  belonging  to 
SiphnOS)  in  Delphi.  Of  marble.  Museum  in  Delphi. 

These  fragments  were  found  in  the  recent  French  excava- 
tions in  Delphi,  together  with  many  others,  only  a  few  of 
which  have  been  published.     The  museum  is  just  finished  and^i  \. 
the  installation  2  of  all  the  sculptures  is  hardly  completed.     It   } 
is,  therefore,  too  early  to  speak  the  last  word  on  these  reliefs, 
but  that  they  are  of  importance  is  certain. 

The  treasury  of  Siphnos  was  built  about  525  B.  C.,  and  that 
of  Sikyon  probably  considerably  earlier.  The  metopes  from 
this  latter  building,  Plate  43a,  are  oblong  in  form,  very  unlike 

1  See  also  the  giant  from  the  treasury  of  Megara  in  Olympia,  Plate 
46,  and  the  Metopes  from  Selinus,  text  illustration  5,  49,  and  Plate  5ib. 

2  Berliner  Philologische  Wochenschrift,  July  11,  1903. 


44  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

in  shape  those    of  later  periods,  which  were  almost  square. 
(cf.  The  Parthenon  Metopes,  Plates  i6off.) 

One  little  detail  of  costume  in  the  male  figure  to  the  spec- 
tator's right  is  interesting  as  showing  a  survival  of  a  habit  in 
vogue  in  Homeric  times.     The  belt  around  the  waist  under 
the  garment  is  the  Homeric  Mitre,  as  P.  Perdrizet  has  proved* 
in  his  fully  illustrated  article  in  B.  C.  H.,  '97,  pp.  169-183. 

In  studying  the  relief,  notice  the  attention  paid  to  pleasing, 
and  largely  parellel  lines,  and  the  inability  of  the  artist  to  carve 
the  many  legs  of  the  cattle  successfully.  A  century  later,  on 
the  Parthenon,  the  well  carved  animal  legs  belong  to  the  best 
parts  of  the  entire  frieze. 

The  other  metope,  Europa  on  the  Bull,  finds  its  counterpart 
in  the  metope  from  Selinus,  text  illustration  48.  The  chariot 
horses,  Plate  43b,  mark  a  decided  advance  over  the  cattle, 
Plate  433,  and  are  especially  interesting  as  compared  with  those 
on  the  Herakles  and  Hydra  relief,  Plate  4oa,  on  the  Knidian 
frieze,  Plate  44,  and  on  the  Parthenon  (see  below).  There  is 
variety  in  these  horses,  some  being  seen  in  profile,  others  from 
the  front.  No  such  variety  is  introduced  on  the  Parthenon, 
in  keeping  with  the  different  conception  of  relief  sculpture 
which  prevailed  in  Athens  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
In  Delphi  the  actuality  of  the  background  as  a  solid  mass  is 
not  considered,  for  chariot  and  men  are  proceeding  slantingly 
out  from  the  background.1 

The  dead  man  has  fallen  not  parallel  with  the  wall,  but  at  a 
very  sharp  angle.  This  is  one  of  those  deviations  from  the 
strict  principles  of  relief  sculpture  which  add  an  element  of 
pictorial  interest,  but  can  never  attain  the  harmonious  unity 
that  prevails,  for  instance,  on  the  Parthenon  frieze.  The 
thing  to  note  is  that  such  pictorial  decorations  were  known  to 

1  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  55ff.,  p.  323. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


45 


the  Parthenon  sculptors,  who,  after  due  deliberation,  refused 
to  stoop  to  any  means  not  in  keeping  with  their  principles. 

PLATE  44.  Reliefs  from  the  Frieze  of  the  Treasury  of  Knidos  in 
Delphi.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Delphi. 

These  reliefs,  recently  excavated  in  Delphi  by  the  French, 
may  be  called  the  forerunners  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  In 
strong  contrast  to  the  earlier  Delphi  frieze,  Plate  43,  the  artist 
here  has  realized  the  existence  of  the  wall  as  an  actuality. 
The  chariot  horses  may  well  be  considered  to  be  the  proto- 
types of  an  improved  group  on  the  Parthenon  (see  south  frieze 
below),  while  the  seated  figures  remind  one,  in  general  ar- 
rangement, of  the  gods  on  the  east  frieze.  In  bodily  shape 
they  are  more  like  the  deities  on  the  "Theseion,"  Plates  1318"., 
while  the  folds  of  their  short  cloaks  are  much  like  those  of  the 
Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25-30.  In  the  folds  of  the  figure  to 
the  spectator's  right  the  inability  of  the  artist  to.  have  them 
fall  as  the  forward  bend  of  the  figure  would  seem  to  demand  is 
noteworthy.1  For  the  folds  on  her  back  compare  those  of  the 
garment  of  Chares,  Plate  36. 

PLATE  45.  Lowest  Sculptured  Drum  of  a  Column  of  the  Old 
Temple  Of  Artemis  in  EphCSOS.  Of  marble.  British  Museum.  Lon- 
don. Excavated  in  the  early  seventies.  British  Museum  Catalogue  I, 
pp.  24ff. 

This  column  has  been  put  together  of  the  fragments  of 
several  columns.  The  inscription,  probably  correctly  restored, 
as  "  King  Kroisos  dedicated  (this  column),"  and  the  figure  of 
the  man  are  said  to  belong  together.  Kroisos  fell  in  546 

1  Compare  here  the  hair  of  the  Kekropos,  Plate  47b,  and  of  the 
Spinario,  Plate  72. 


46        GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

B.  C.  This  gives  the  date  ante  quern  for  these  Ephesos 
sculptures ;  and,  since  the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Kroisos 
were  full  of  wars,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sculpt- 
ures were  made  about  550  B.  C.  They  are  thus  contemporary 
with  some  of  the  Branchidai  figures,  Plate  36,  flanking  the 
road  which  led  up  to  the  temple  of  Apollo,  upon  which 
Kroisos  is  also  said  to  have  showered  his  royal  gifts. 

With  only  one  male  figure  and  the  head  of  a  woman  pre- 
served, the  subject  of  the  composition  cannot  be  ascertained. 
The  man  is  of  peculiarly  lanky  proportions,  and  his  face  — 
to  judge  by  what  is  left  —  un-Greek  to  the  extreme.  There 
is,  however,  much  dignity  in  his  bearing.  It  grows  upon  one 
with  continued  study. 

The  face  of  the  woman  is  Greek.  It  is  like  many  early 
Greek  faces,  beautiful,  with  placid  lines.  Much  attention  is 
given  to  details,  but  never  a  thought  to  character. 

PLATE  46.    Pedimental  Relief  from  the  Treasury  of  Megara  in 

Olympia.    Of  limestone.    Museum,  Olympia.    Ad.  Boetticher,  Olympia, 

pp.  2I2ff. 

This  fragment  of  a  gigantomachia  (fight  of  the  Gods  against 
the  giants)  has,  with  some  probability,  been  recognized  as  the 
work  of  one  Medon,  member  of  the  famous  school  of  artists 
who  came  to  Greece  from  Crete.  The  folds  of  the  drapery 
and  the  face  with  the  peculiarly  wrought  beard  and  the  droop- 
ing mustache  '  are  in  keeping  with  work  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  sixth  century.2  The  artistic  design  3  is  surprisingly  good. 
The  arrangement  of  the  legs,  with  the  thigh  of  the  giant  about 
equal  to  the  size  of  his  opponent's  foot,  the  modelling  of  the 

1  Contrast  the  gold  mask  from  Mykenai,  Tsountas,  and  Manatt,  p.  98. 
2  Compare  head  below.  Gardner,  p.  208.  3  Compare  this  design  with 
Plate  42. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE. 


47 


nude  and  the  moderation  shown  in  the  collapse  of  the  giant, 
all  imply  severe  training. 

PLATES  47-51  and  Text  Illustrations.    Metopes '  from  Selinus 

in  Sicily.  Of  limestone.  Museum,  Palermo.  Discovered  at  various 
times;  the  majority  in  1822  and  soon  after,  those  of  the  third  series 
in  1892  by  Professor  Salinas.  Benndorf :  Die  Metopen  -von  Selinunt 
1873 ;  Serradifalco,  Antichita  delta  Sicilia.  For  the  later  discovery, 
Monumcnti  antic  hi,  Reale  Academia  dei  Lencei,  Volume  I,  1892.  A 
few  are  discussed  F.  W.  I49ff.;  Robinson  27  and  28.  All  are  men- 
tioned Overbeck  I,  pp.  I3iff.,  2i2ff.,  2i5ff.,  557ff. 

These  metopes  belong  to  different  temples,  of  which  only 
one  has  been  identified  as  dedicated  to  a  definite  deity.  It 
is  the  temple  of  Hera,  and  its  extant  metopes  are  those  given 
on  Plates  49-5 1 .  They  are  the  latest  of  all,  dating  probably 
from  between  480  and  450  B.  C.,  that  is,  in  the  Transitional 
Period.  They  are,  however,  placed  here  together  with  the 
older  metopes,  because  they  seem  to  be  the  natural  culmina- 
tion of  a  comparatively  independent  style.  They  are  cus- 
tomarily referred  to  as  series  IV. 

Series  I  dates  from  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century 
or  earlier,  and  comprises  Perseus  slaying  Medusa,  Herakles 
and  the  Kekropes,  and  a  chariot.  Of  Series  II  only  one  is 
well  preserved,  Europaon  the  Bull,2  Text  Illustration  48.  Series 
III  is  represented  by  two  fragments,  Text  Illustration  49. 

All  these  metopes  were  colored.  How  much  these  early 
artists  relied  upon  color  is  shown  also  by  the  fact  that  they 
carved  the  nude  parts  of  the  women  separately  in  white 
marble,  adding  them  to  the  rest,  which  had  been  carved  in 
limestone. 

1  Plate  48b  is  a  later  votive  relief,  placed  here  for  the  sake  of  com- 
parison. 2  For  a  late  copy  of  Europa  on  the  Bull,  see  British  Museum 
Catalogue,  1535  ;  Reinach  II,  417,  2. 


48  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  most  apparent  characteristic  of  the  metopes  of  the 
first  series  is  daring  of  composition  coupled  with  very  in- 
adequate skill,  but  with  a  certain  natural  gift  of  expression. 
The  artist '  knew  how  to  make  'himself  understood.  This  was 
indeed  his  chief  aim.  Consequently  he  avoided  everything 
that  might  have  led  to  confusion.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
saw  no  objection  against  deviating  from  nature,  if  by  so 
doing  he  could  serve  his  end.  This  is  best  seen  in  Herakles 
carrying  the  Kekropes.  There  were,  from  his  point  of  view, 
strong  objections  against  carving  the  legs  of  the  imps  retreat- 
ing into  the  background,  that  is  to  say,  with  only  their  knees 
showing  and  perhaps  their  toes,  but  with  the  rest  cut  from 
view,  as  they  would  naturally  be,  by  the  knees.  Similarly 
undesirable  it  was  not  to  have  the  faces  of  the  Kekropes 
show.  All  early  figures  face  the  spectator.  He  therefore 
carved  a  group  which  is  anatomically  impossible,  but  which 
is  yet  readily  understood.  Herakles  carries  the  twins  sus- 
pended from  a  pole  over  his  shoulders. 

A  certain  amount  of  accurate  study  of  nature  shows  in  the 
hair  of  the  Kekropes,  falling  downward.  This  Greek  artists 
did  not  always  observe ;  the  hair  of  the  Spinario,  for  instance, 
Plate  72,  does  not  follow  the  forward  inclination  of  the  head. 

The  feet  on  the  other  metope,  Plate  473,  are  extremely  in- 
teresting. They  indicate  the  direction  in  which  the  figures 
have  been  moving.  Exactly  the  same  is  found  a  century 
later  in  Eurydike,  Plate  179,  but  of  course  more  cleverly 
managed.  The  hind  legs  of  Pegasos,  sprung  as  the  story 
says  from  the  blood  of  Medusa,  are  elongated  so  that  they 
may  reach  the  ground  and  fill  an  empty  space.  This  also 


1  The  singular  is  generic.  We  do  not  know  that  one  man  made  all 
the  metopes  of  the  temple.  He  might  have  made  three  or  four,  but 
it  would  be  strange  to  have  the  few  that  are  preserved  belong  all  to 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  49 

occurs  again  in  the  fifth  century  in  the  case  of  a  centaur  from 
the  Phigaleia  frieze,  Plate  172. 

The  kneeling  position  of  Medusa  may  suggest  her  hasty 
flight  and  in  that  case  be  comparable  to  the  attitude  of  the 
figure  from  Delos,  Plate  32.  It  may,  however,  also  be  a 
devise  of  the  artist  in  order  to  make  the  monster  appear  to  be 
of  a  more  awe-inspiring  size.  The  knees  of  all  the  figures 
are  very  good,  and  far  ahead  of  the  majority  of  knees  of  the 
early  "Apollos,"  Plates  nff.  The  faces  also  are  not  without 
a  certain  naif  charm,  and  the  knees  certainly  are  full  of  spirit. 

Attention  to  a  pleasing  appearance  of  the  composition  is 
not  entirely  neglected.  The  overlong  legs  of  Pegasos  are 
one  instance ;  others  are  the  thickened  right  thigh  of 
Medusa,  and  the  sword  of  Herakles.  All  are  due  to  the 
desire  to  avoid  empty  spaces,  the  same  that  led  to  the 
overlarge  hand  and  cup  on  the  Spartan  tombstones.1 

The  inactive  presence  of  Athena  in  the  Theseus  metope 
finds  many  parallels  in  Greek  sculpture.  Similar  figures, 
with  whom  it  is  instructive  to  compare  her,  are  seen  on  the 
Olympia  metopes,  Plates  90  and  91,  while  other  gods,  per- 
haps invisibly  present,  are  depicted  in  the  pediments  of 
the  temples  of  Olympia,  Plates  86f.,  and  of  Aigina,  Plate  83. 

After  studying  two  of  the  metopes,  the  reasons  why  the 
sculptor  carved  his  chariot,  Plate  48a,  as  he  did,  are  appar- 
ent. On  the  same  plate  a  picture  of  a  much  later  chariot 
is  given,  and  nothing  could  more  clearly  disclose  the  in- 
herent points  of  weakness,  and  yet  of  vigor  of  the  Selinus 
design. 

The  style  of  the  metopes  of  the  second  series  is  illus- 
trated by  Europa  riding  the  bull  across  the  sea, Text  Illus- 

1  See  below  under  grave  monuments. 


5o  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tration  48.  This  picture  gives  an  excellent  revelation  of 
the  simplicity  of  the  artist's  reasoning.  The  dolphin 
shows  that  Europa  is  on  the  water,  the  front  legs  of  the 
bull  suggest  that  he  is  swimming,  and  his  swishing  tail 
and  turned  head  declare  that  he  is  pleased. 

The  bull  is  Zeus,  who,  according  to  the  story,  carried 
his  beloved  Europa  away  with  him  over  the  brine.  There 
is  an  almost  human  expression  on  his  face,1  very  different 
from  that  of  the  calf,  Plate  19,  and  probably  intentionally 
so.  The  animal  heads  of  the  other  metopes  are  more  in 
keeping  with  the  natural  appearance  of  the  beasts  por- 
trayed. 

The  technical  difficulties  are  overcome  with  considerable 
ease,  but  with  little  success.  The  back  of  the  bull  is  hol- 
lowed so  that  Europa's  head  could  come  within  the  limit 
of  the  block  ;  the  problem  of  the  twisted  body  is  solved  by 
hiding  the  waist  behind  an  outspread  piece  of  drapery,  and 
the  hair,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  confusion,  does  not  fall 
straight  over  both  shoulders. 

The  men  who  carved  these  metopes  were  unspoiled  by 
any  traditional  schooling.  What  they  felt  they  told,  and 
the  way  they  told  it  did  not  trouble  them,  provided  it  was 
intelligible.  This  simplicity  of  heart,  however,  soon  gave 
way  to  a  more  thoughtful  consideration  of  the  problems 
of  the  sculptor's  art.  Series  III,  Text  Illustrations  8  and  9, 
already  gives  evidence  of  this,  and  comes,  therefore,  much 
nearer  to  the  monuments  of  the  mainland.  One  of  the 
falling  giants  compares  favorably  with  a  similar  figure  from 
the  treasury  of  Megara  in  Olympia,  Plate  46.  In  Series 


1 A  similar  expression  is  noted  in  a  Roman  work,   the  sacrifice  of 
Marcus  Aurelius. 


8    AND    9.       GIGANTOMACHIA,    METOPES    FROM    SELINUS. 


IO.       MUSEUM    INTERIOR,    PALERMO. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  51 

IV  finally,  Plates  49-51,  a  severe  training  of  both  thought 
and  hand  is  at  once  apparent. 

These  metopes,  especially  the  two  on  Plates  49  and  50, 
have  lost  none  of  the  honesty  of  expression  that  charac- 
terizes the  earlier  works  from  Selinus,  but  they  have  gained, 
in  addition,  the  grace  that  comes  with  discipline.  The 
artist  no  longer  carves  the  very  first  thing  he  chooses  to 
express,  but  rather  those  conceptions  which  he  has  care- 
fully thought  out  and  found  to  be  good.  The  lines  and 
masses  of  the  Zeus  and  Hera  relief  are  dignified  and 
pleasing.  The  seated  god  is  very  well  designed,  and  his 
majestic  gesture  gains  by  having  him  reach  out  across 
an  empty  space.1  Only  the  arrangement  of  his  shawl  is 
too  studied  in  effect  to  be  altogether  pleasing.  His  face 
compares  well  with  that  of  "Zeus"  in  Munich,  Plate  71. 

Hera  also  appears  to  better  advantage  when  she  is  con- 
trasted with  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25ff.,  and  the 
same  is  the  case  with  Artemis  when  she  is  studied  side 
by  side  with  the  metopes  from  Olympia,  Plates  goff. 

The  other  two  metopes  are  less  satisfactory.  The  on- 
ward sweep  of  Athena  is  well  conceived,  but  the  slanting 
lines  of  her  body  are  in  need  of  a  steadying  mass  instead 
of  one  of  such  weakness  as  is  offered  by  the  body  of  the 
collapsing  giant.  For  this  reason  the  lines  of  the  Aktaion 
group,  and  even  those  of  the  Herakles  and  Hippofeta,  7 
are  superior  to  those  of  the  Athena  slab,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  motives  of  these  latter  metopes  are  much 
tamer. 

There  is  another  unsuccessful  touch  in  the  Athena  and 


1  This  meant  much  in  an  age  when  people  were  governed  by  the 
"  horror  vacui."     (See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  50  and  65.) 


(\ 


5 2  GREEK:  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

in  the  Herakles  metopes,  which  is  due  to  the  endeavor  of 
the  sculptor  to  show  clearly  the  close  bodily  contact  be- 
tween the  victors  and  their  opponents.  The  struggling 
men  and  women  are  stepping  on  each  other's  feet.  This 
no  doubt  is  true  to  nature,  but  it  is  not  pleasant  to  look  at, 
and  for  this  reason  does  not  often  occur  in  Greek  art. 

The  Selinus  metopes  make  a  different  impression  on  the 
student  from  any  known  Greek  works,  although  some  of 
their  figures  show  strong  resemblances  to  other  familiar 
statues  or  reliefs.  Several  correspondences  have  been 
pointed  out  above.  Others  are  found  in  the  head  of 
Herakles,  Plate  51  a,  which  reminds  one  of  Harmodios, 
Plate  58,  and  in  his  pose,  which  suggests  that  of  Aristo- 
geiton,  Plate  59.  But  in  spite  of  all  this  seeming  corres- 
pondence there  is  a  fundamental  difference.  The  Selinus 
sculptor  shows  himself  to  be  an  unspoiled  child  of  nature, 
clever  to  a  certain  extent  and  open-hearted.  The  true 
Greek,  on  the  other  hand,  who  was  not  less  a  child  of  na- 
ture, had  too  keen  a  sense  of  the  propriety  of  things  to 
permit  himself  the  luxury  of  a  random  expression  of  first 
thoughts.  What  he  created  was,  to  the  best  of  his  knowl- 
edge, his  sober  second  thought  and  always  the  result  of 
severe  discipline,  both  mental  and  technical. 

• 

PLATE  52a.    Gable  End  of  a  Tomb  from  Xanthos  in  Lycia.    Of 

limestone.    British  Museum,  London.     Discovered  1838-1840.    British 
Museum  Catalogue  I,  p.  45  and  Nos.  89  and  90. 

PLATE  52b.    Frieze  of  Cocks  and  Hens  from  Xanthos  in  Lycia. 

Of   limestone.      British    Museum,    London.      Discovered    1838-1840. 
Catalogue  I,  No.  82. 

The  great  skill  of  the  artist  in  filling  his  triangular  space 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  53 

is  the  first  thing  noticed  in  the  upper  relief ' ;  the  next 
thing  is  his  mastery  over  animal  forms.  Compared  with 
them,  even  the  beautiful  faces  of  the  sphinxes  lose  in  life- 
likeness.  The  women's  breasts,  however,  reveal  the  cus- 
tomary disregard  of  anatomically  accurate  forms. 

Variety  in  perfect  balance  is  another  characteristic  of 
the  upper  slab.  It  is  carried  to  the  minutest  detail,  as  a 
careful  observation  reveals.  Not  only  the  faces  and  hair- 
dresses  are  different,  but  also  the  wings,  and  the  curls  of 
the  tails.  The  upper  slab  is  doubtless  the  gable  of  a  tomb, 
for  which  the  presence  of  sphinxes 2  was  especially  appro- 
priate. When  first  discovered,  the  gable  group  was  brill- 
iantly colored  in  blue,  red,  black,  and  white. 

PLATE  53.    Frieze  of  the  "  Harpy  "  Tomb  from  Xanthos,  Lycia. 

Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London.  Discovered  1838-1840.  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  I29ff.;  British  Museum  Catalogue  I,  pp.  54ff.;  Robinson, 
No.  29;  F.  W.,  Nos.  i27ff. 

These  four  reliefs  are  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  i2gff.  The  important  points  are: 

1.  The  position  of  the  frieze  just  below  the  cornice  of 
a  monument  about  twenty  feet  high. 

2.  The    flying    figures    carrying    off    little    creatures, 
wrongly  named  "harpies,"  which  have  given  the  name  to 
the  monument. 

3.  The  pictorial  element  in  the  group  of  the  woman 

1  The  apparently  empty  space  over  the  left  Sphinx  was  originally 
filled  by  the  extended  beam  of  the  lintel,  now  broken  away. 

2  Earlier  sphinxes   have  been  discussed,  Plates  38  and  39.     There 
are  also  sphinxes,  only  slightly  less  beautiful  than  these,  among  the  re- 
cently discovered  fragments  from  Assos. 


54 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


sitting  under  one  of  the  "harpies,"  and  its  inappropriate- 
ness  in  sculpture. 

4.  The  expressive  poses  of  the  seated  figures.  - 

5.  The  successful  dealing  with  isokephalism. 

6.  The  interesting  treatment  of   the   women «  and    of 
their  draperies. 

7.  The  stocky  build  of  the  man  in  armor. 

8.  The  exquisite  echo  of  actual  nature  in   the  shep- 
herd (?)  with  his  dog. 

9.  The  adherence  to  nature  in  the  representation  of 
animal  forms,  for  which  compare  Plate  52. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  identification  of  the  seated 
figures  as  gods  is  not  assured.  Percy  Gardner  (/.  H.  S., 
V,  pp.  i29ff.)  suggests  with  much  force  that  they  are  rep- 
resentations of  the  dead,  worshipped  as  heroes.  For  such 
a  custom  see  the  Spartan  tombstones  below. 

PLATE  54.  Reliefs  from  Thasos.  Of  white  marble.  Louvre, 
Paris.  Discovered  1864.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1341!.;  Robinson,  No.  37. 
A-C  ;  A.J.  A.,  First  Series,  Vol.  V,  pp.  4i6ff. 

These  reliefs  are  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 
i34ff.  The  important  points  are  : 

1.  Application  of  suggested  lines  in  a  few  of  the  draped 
figures. 

2.  Perfect  balance  of  the  groups  on  either  side  of  the 
door,  adding  the  three  women  to  the  left  of  the  large  block, 
and  the  Hermes  and  Grace  to  the  right. 

3.  Variety  in  balance. 


1  References  of  comparison  with  other  works  are  given  throughout  in 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1296°. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  55 

4.  The   skilful  twist  in  the  Apollo  figure,  which  may  be 
contrasted  with  Plate  32. 

5.  The   technique   of    cutting   away   the    background 
where  a  part  of  the  figure  is  intended  to  project,  notably 
in  the  case  of  Hermes. 

6.  The  unconvincing  position  of  the  legs  of  Hermes, 
owing  to  the  timidity  of  the  sculptor. 

7.  The  moderation  in  the  figures  of  the  girls  following 
immediately  upon  the  gods. 

Attention  may  also  be  called  to  the  figure  back  of 
Hermes,  who  has  only  two  braids  falling  over  her  shoulder, 
while  in  early  times  three  is  customary  in  statues  in  the 
round.  The  space  in  the  relief  is  too  limited  to  admit  of 
three  braids  without  crowding.  The  artist  was  wise, 
therefore,  in  deviating  from  his  model.  For  the  beauty  of 
the  face  and  the  fullness  of  the  breast  of  this  girl  compare 
the  sphinxes  from  Xanthos,  Plate  52a. 

A  different  arrangement  from  the  one  here  suggested  is 
proposed  by  Michaelis.1  He  arranges  the  slabs  around 
three  sides  of  an  open  court,  the  long  slab  facing  you  as 
you  enter,  the  short  slabs  at  right  angles  from  the  larger 
one,  and  supplemented  each  by  one  additional  slab,  now 
lost.  The  composition  as  we  have  it  is  so  complete  that  it 
is  difficult  to  think  of  any  valuable  additions.  If  Michaelis 
nevertheless  is  right,  —  and  his  arguments,  based  on  ob- 
servations on  the  preserved  slabs  and  the  possibility  of 
having  them  joined  together,  certainly  sound  convincing 
(except  in  the  case  of  the  supplementary  slabs),  —  then 
we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  one  artist  made  the  ex- 
cellent design,  and  that  other  sculptors,  executing  it,  broke 

1  A.J.  A.,  First  Series,  Vol.  V,  pp.  4i6ff. 


56  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  design,  perhaps  at  the  request  of  their  employer,  in  the 
fashion  indicated  by  Michaelis. 

PLATE  55.  The  Death  Of  Aigistheus.  Marble  relief.  Glyptothek 
Ny  Carlsberg  (Copenhagen).  Discovered  (date  unknown)  in  Aricia  in 
Latium.  Formerly  in  the  Museum  Despuig  in  Palma  on  Mayorca. 

The  subject  of  this  relief  has  been  variously  '  interpreted. 
It  probably  represents  Orestes  with  drawn  sword  standing 
over  the  mortally  wounded  Aigistheus,  and  uncertain 
whether  the  foul  murder  of  his  father,  Agamemnon,  de- 
mands of  him  also  the  killing  of  his  mother  Klytaimnestra. 
She  stands  behind  him,  placing  her  hand,  perhaps  depre- 
catingly,  on  his  shoulder.  Elektra  follows  her,  looking  at 
Orestes  with  a  gesture  of  victory  and  an  almost  sardonic 
smile.  The  women  to  the  right  and  left  are  slaves  of  the 
household. 

The  grouping  of  the  figures  is  well  done.  The  backward 
glance  of  Orestes  supplies  a  center  of  interest,  and  the 
moment  selected  —  the  son  hesitating  before  the  matricide 
—  is  of  great  dramatic  power.  The  wailing  slaves,  the 
dying  knave  who  had  killed  Agamemnon  and  had  stolen 
his  wife,  the  excited  mother  —  notice  her  huge  steps2  — 
and  the  exulting  daughter,  all  give  indications  of  the 
superior  power  of  the  artist's  mind. 

Coupled  with  these,  however,  an  awkwardness  of  execu- 
tion is  noticed,  not  less  surprising,  although  it  finds,  in 
every  instance,  its  parallel  in  other  early  Greek  works. 
For  the  turned  head  of  Orestes,  see  the  lolaos  or  the 
Herakles  and  Hydra  relief,  Plate  4oa  ;  for  the  drapery  fall- 

J  See  Overbeck  I,  pp.  216  and  295.     2  Compare  remarks  to  Plate  35. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  57 

ing  in  untroubled  folds  from  the  shoulders  of  the  excited 
murderer,  see  the  figure  mounting  a  chariot,  Plate  56 ;  for 
the  folds  of  the  dress  gathered  in  the  hands  of  the  queen,  the 
figures  from  the  Akropolis,  Plates  2sff.,  and  so  on.  There 
are,  however,  also  incongruities  of  considerable  impor- 
tance in  the  design  of  the  relief.  The  garment  of  the  slave, 
for  instance,  behind  Aigistheus  falls  in  actual  folds,  while 
that  of  the  queen  is  laid  in  the  conventional  folds  of  early 
Greece  ;  the  anatomy  of  the  knee  of  Aigistheus  is  correct, 
that  of  the  Orestes  is  like  an  inaccurate  copy  of  one  of  the 
knees  of  the  later  "Apollos,"  Plates  11-16.  The  sleeve- 
finish  of  the  cloak  of  Klytaimnestra  indicates  a  miscon- 
ception of  this  garment,1  and  the  smile  of  Elektra  is  out  of 
keeping  with  the  expressionless  faces  of  the  others.  The 
arrangement  of  the  three  feet  in  the  center  is  very  clumsy 
and  seems  strange  in  a  composition  of  such  power,  most 
especially  when  it  is  compared  with  compositions  like  the 
pedimental  frieze  of  the  treasury  of  Megara,  Plate  46,  or 
the  beautiful  disposition  of  the  three  hands  in  the  relief 
from  Pharsalos  below. 

Overbeck  (I,  p.  216)  says  that  the  genuineness  of  this 
relief  has  never  been  questioned.  In  view  of  the  above 
remarks  this  is  strange.  If  the  relief  is  genuine  in  spite 
of  them,  it  is  unique. 

PLATE  56.  Figure  Mounting  a  Chariot.  Of  marble  (possibly 
Pentelic).  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  Found  near  the  Propylaia  in 
1822,  except  the  small  block  with  the  horses'  tails,  which  was  first  no- 
ticed by  Newton  on  the  Akropolis  in  1852.  A  head  of  Hermes,  prob- 
ably belonging  to  the  same  relief,  was  found  in  1859  near  the  south 
wall  of  the  Akropolis.  O.  Hauser,  mjahrbuch,  1892,  pp.  54ff.,  identi- 

1  See  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25-30. 


58  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

fies  the  figure  as  male.  He  says  it  is  Apollo.  He  has  many  followers, 
among  them  Michaelis  in  Springer's  Handbuch  I,  p.  192.  Overbeck  (I, 
p.  203)  retains  the  old  designation  of  a  woman.  Robinson  (No.  33) 
follows  Hauser. 


For  the  appreciation  of  this  relief  it  is  of  no  conse- 
quence whether  this  figure  is  male  or  female.  If  a  woman 
is  meant,  the  artist  has  wisely  discontinued  the  habit  of 
representing  her  breast  with  too  much  fullness.1  The  lines 
of  the  relief  are  delicate,  great  skill  being  shown  in  the 
radiation  of  the  folds  of  the  cloak  toward  the  right  arm. 
They  carry  the  eye  forward  and  thence  along  the  arms  to 
the  horses,  and  add  a  pleasing  element  of  unity.  The 
orderly  arrangement  of  the  ends  falling  over  the  arms  are 
characteristically  out  of  keeping  with  the  action  of  the 
figure,  just  as  is  the  case  on  the  Aigistheus  relief,  Plate  55, 
and  also  on  the  Athena  from  Aigina,  Plate  83. 

The  technique  of  the  relief  approximates  that  of  the 
Hermes  slab  from  Thasos,  Plate  54.  The  background  is 
not  one  even  plane,  but  scooped  out  in  places  to  give  more 
prominence  to  some  parts.  The  skilful  and  convincing 
arrangement  of  the  composition  is  best  appreciated  when 
one  realizes  that  the  wheel,  in  spite  of  the  extreme  flat- 
ness 2  of  the  relief,  appears  to  be  on  a  nearer  plane  to  the 
spectator  than  the  figure.  It  is  this  dexterous  disposition 
of  the  integral  parts  of  the  composition  that,  pushed  to  its 
perfection,  gives  to  the  Parthenon  frieze  its  greatest  charm. 


1  Look  at  the  girl  following  Hermes,  Plate  54.     2  For  relief  sculpt- 
ure and  its  devises  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  48ff. 


II.       HERMES. 


12.       ATHENA  PARTHENOS    ON    A    GEM. 


13.       RESTORATION    OF    TEMPLE    OF    AIGINA. 


ARCHAIC  SCULPTURE.  59 


Note. 

One  interesting  group  of  figures  is  not  represented  in 
this  collection,  the  men  on  horseback.  Several  are  in  ex- 
istence, but  none  are  well  preserved.  Franz  Winter,  Jahr- 
buch  VIII,  1893,  pp.  i35ff.)  supplies  many  pictures  in  the 
course  of  an  exhaustive  article,  while  Studniczka  (Jahrbuch 
VI,  1891,  pp.  239)  discusses  an  especially  interesting 
monument.  Another  horseman  in  relief  is  now  in  the 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston. 


60  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART   THREE. 


THE   TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.' 

This  period  dates  from  the  end  of  the  Persian  wars,  480 
B.  C.  (more  accurately  479  B.  C. )  to  about  450  B.  C.  It 
is  marked  by  the  spirit  of  freedom,  which,  after  the  battle 
of  Salamis,  had  begun  to  sweep  over  Greece.  Old  conven- 
tions, unless  founded  on  truth  and  on  accuracy  of  observa- 
tion, were  discarded,  and  as  quickly  as  skill  permitted, 
nothing  was  done  because  "  it  had  always  been  done  that 
way,"  but  because  "it  now  seemed  to  be  the  best  way  to 
do  it." 

The  names  of  a  few  artists  working  during  these  thirty 
years  are  known,  and  some  of  their  works,  which  have 
been  identified  in  extant  statues,  have  revealed  the  sub- 
stantial accuracy  of  the  above  characterization.  Others 
have  then  been  assigned  to  the  same  period  as  following 
the  identical  tendencies.  Art  tendencies,  however,  are 
rarely  confined,  in  all  their  manifestations,  to  one  short 
span  of  time.  They  are  prematurely  followed  by  excep- 
tional men  long  before  they  begin  to  be  the  moving  power 
of  all,  while  conservative  people  adhere  to  them  even  after 
the  natural  course  of  their  influence  is  run.  It  is  wrong, 
therefore,  to  believe  that  all  the  works  discussed  in  this 
period  were  necessarily  made  during  the  years  from  480- 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i5Sff. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  6 1 

450  B.  C.     All  that  can  be  said  is  that  they  are  of  the 
style  in  vogue  at  that  time. 

Some  of  the  Greek  masterpieces  were  made  soon  after 
450  B.  C.,  some  of  the  most  restricted  conceptions  were 
executed  immediately  preceding  480  B.  C.  The  period 
under  discussion,  therefore,  is  properly  called  the  Transi- 
tional Period. 

PLATE  57.  Statue  Of  a  "  Boy."  Of  marble.  Akropolis  Museum, 
Athens.  Found,  the  body,  1865-66;  the  head,  1888;  both  near  the 
site  of  the  present  Akropolis  Museum.  Overbeck,  p.  205,  fig.  48 ; 
Robinson,  No.  64;  Reinach  II,  588,  i. 

This  statue  is  almost  universally  referred  to  as  that  of 
a  boy.  It  is  small,  as  would  become  a  young  fellow  of 
thirteen  or  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  so  beautiful  in  its 
modelling  that  the  accruing  element  of  chastity  seems  to  be 
in  keeping  with  such  a  subject.  Reinach  alone  classifies 
it  among  statues  of  men,  and  he  is  probably  right.  The 
resemblance,  both  in  form  and  face,  of  this  figure  with  the 
Harmodios,  Plate  58,  has  often  '  been  pointed  out,  and 
Harmodios  is  not  a  boy.  The  photographs  of  the  statue, 
moreover,  in  which  the  reduced  size  of  the  original  does 
not  appear,  do  not  at  first  give  one  the  impression  of 
a  boy.  The  comparison  finally  of  this  figure  with  the 
Spinario,  Plate  72,  who  is  intended  to  be  very  young,  the 
differences  in  the  conception  between  the  two  statues, 
and,  most  especially,  the  difference  in  the  development  of 
the  arms,  make  it  more  than  probable  that  we  have  here 
not  the  statue  of  a  boy,  but  the  statuette  of  a  man.  If 

1  See  bibliography  Robinson,  No.  64. 


62  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

we,  on  the  other  hand,  prefer  to  retain  the  idea  of  a  boy,  we 
must  see  in  this  figure  one  of  those  frequent  perversities  of 
ancient  art,  by  means  of  which  the  same  physical  develop- 
ment did  duty  for  all  ages,  while  the  artists  relied  upon 
differences  of  size  to  distinguish  between  them.  This 
view,  however,  is  a  little  far-fetched.  Our  statue  is  not 
much  smaller  than  any  of  the  "  Apollos,"  except  that  from 
Melos,  and  is  even  larger  than  the  Strangford  "Apollo," 
Plate  i 6. 

A  comparison  with  this  latter  statue  reveals  the  changes 
that  have  taken  place.  The  Strangford  "  Apollo  "  shows 
its  origin  in  every  line  ;  it  is  the  best  of  a  type  that  can  be 
traced  back,  step  by  step,  to  the  "  Apollo  "  of  Thera.  The 
Akropolis  figure  is  the  free  conception  of  a  man  who  has 
learned  his  lesson  from  the  "  Apollo "  figures,  but  who, 
after  learning  his  lesson,  has  closed  his  book  and  has 
struck  out  for  himself.  One  daring  device  of  the  "  Strang- 
ford "  artist  he  has  even  refused  to  accept,  preferring  to 
follow  the  men  a  little  back  in  the  line  who  supported  the 
arms  by  little  blocks  near  the  hips  of  their  figures.  The 
almost  too  prominent  muscles  over  the  ribs  of  the  Strang- 
ford "  Apollo  "  our  artist  has  toned  down,  convinced  that 
it  was  more  important  to  be  true  to  nature  than  to  show 
his  knowledge  of  anatomy.  The  face  is  not  individual,  as 
indeed  it  could  not  be,1  but  it  has  lost  the  artificial  appear- 
ance of  the  "Apollos,"  which  was  due  to  the  promiscuous 
attention  paid  to  all  the  features.  When  Robinson  be- 
lieves the  inserted  eyeballs  (now  lost)  indicate  the  inten- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  sculptor  to  imitate  a  statue  of 
bronze,  he  is  in  error.  Inserted  eyes  are  frequent  in  Greek 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  p.  202. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  63 

marble  and  stone  sculpture,1  while  the  modelling  of  the 
body  of  the  Athenian  youth  is  such  as  is  well  adapted  to 
marble,  and  is  unsuited  to  bronze,  its  delicacy  being  lost 
in  the  harsher  metal.  The  argument  from  the  "  wiry 
treatment "  of  the  hair  is  equally  ill-advised.  The  same 
hair  is  carved  on  the  Strangford  "Apollo." 

No  very  definite  date  can  be  assigned  to  the  Akropolis 
statue.  The  place  of  its  discovery  indicates  that  it  was 
used  by  Kimon  as  yf///^  when  he  began  to  level  the  eastern 
end  of  the  Akropolis.  This  was  before  461  B.  C.  Since 
it  was  not  dumped  together  with  the  figures 2  destroyed  by 
the  Persians  in  480  B.  C.,  it  was  doubtless  made  subse- 
quent to  the  Persian  wars,  that  is,  between  480  and  461 
B.  C.,  or  during  the  Transitional  Period. 

PLATE  58.  HarmodiOS  and  Aristogeiton.  Marble  group;  late 
copy.  Museum  in  Naples.  Date  of  discovery  unknown.  Identified 
by  Friederichs  in  1859.  Restorations  :  Aristogeiton,  the  figure  with 
the  drapery,  both  arms,  the  head,  and  several  toes ;  Harmodios,  both 
arms,  everything  below  the  hips  except  the  upper  part  of  the  left  leg. 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i6off.;  F.  W.,  121-124  (excellent  bibliography); 
Robinson,  Nos.  62-63;  Reinach  I,  530,  3  and  5;  II,  541,  5.  Discus- 
sion of  Restoration,  Sauer,  Rom.  Mittheil.,  1900,  pp.  219—222;  1901,  pp. 
97-108.  E.  Peterson  (Review)  and  A.J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  203. 

PLATE  59.    Aristogeiton  of  the  same  Group. 

This  group  is  discussed  in  detail,  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 
i6off.,  where  its  history  and  its  relation  to  the  earlier 
group  by  Antenor  also  are  treated.  In  a  note  on  p.  329,  a 


'See  Typhon,  Plate  41  a,  and   Calf  Bearer.  Plate   19.     2  See  Platas 
25-30. 


64  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

fragment  of  a  vase  in  the  Museum  in  Boston  is  mentioned, 
which  is  used  as  an  argument  in  the  discussion.  This 
fragment,  the  director  states,  was  sold  to  the  Museum  with 
the  right  of  publication  reserved.  This  right  has  not  yet 
been  made  use  of.  The  public  in  the  meanwhile  is  the 
sufferer.  Before  it  is  published,  its  genuineness  cannot  be 
ascertained,  and  in  view  of  the  many  modern  forgeries 
offered  and  bought  by  Museums,1  the  sanguine  opinion  of 
the  officials  that  they  have  originals  in  their  possession 
counts  for  little.2 

The  important  points  for  the  appreciation  of  this  group 
are: 

1.  The  substantial  accuracy  of  the  restorations.     The 
arm  of  Harmodios,  however,  ought  to  be  bent  more  sharply 
over  his   head.     Both    men   ought    to    carry   swords    and 
scabbards.     The  head  of  Aristogeiton  belongs  to  a  much 
later  period. 

2.  The   age   differentiation   in   the   bodies   of  the   two 
men. 

3.  The  contrast  between  the  older  Aristogeiton,  acting 
from  spite,  and  the  younger  Harmodios,  bent  upon  murder 
to  vindicate  his  family  honor. 

4.  The  freedom  of  action  of  the  figures,  which  is  unlike 


1 Exempli  gratia  only  the  tiara  of  Tissaphernes  in  the  Louvre,  and 
the  "  Tenagra  "  figures  in  Boston. 

2  The  same  is  true  of  many  marbles,  now  on  exhibition  in  American 
Museums,  whose  place  of  provenience  is  withheld,  and  one  of  which,  a 
colossal  statue  of  Kybele  in  Boston,  the  editors  of  this  series  are  not 
permitted  to  publish.  The  interest  of  Greek  art  is  best  served  by 
frankness,  and  where  many  European  Museums  have  set  the  noble  ex- 
ample of  perfect  honesty  in  the  discussion  of  their  possessions,  it  is  to 
be  regretted  that  America  should  lag  behind. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  65 

early  figures  in  the  round  and  is  more  comparable  to  re- 
liefs (see  Hermes,  Plate  54). 

5.  The  attempt  at  representing  movement,  resulting  in 
the  minute  moment  of  rest  between  the  strides.     The  con- 
sequent misunderstanding  of  the  group  on  the  part  of  the 
restorer. 

6.  The  design  of  the  group  follows  the  "principle  of 
opposites ;  "  the  right  side  of  one  figure  corresponding  to 
the  left  side  of  the  other.     The  same  principle  was  followed 
in  the  Kitylos  and  Dermys  group,  Plate  na. 

The  Naples  group  is  a  marble  copy  which  has  lost  much 
of  the  beauty  of  the  bronze  original.  The  supporting  tree- 
trunks  were  not  needed  in  the  bronze.  The  modern  feet 
are  abominable.  For  good  Greek  bronze  feet  of  this 
period  see  the  Charioteer  of  Delphi,  Plate  60.  For  the 
beauty  of  a  Greek  original  of  the  Transitional  Period  see 
Plate  57. 

There  are  several  other  statues  in  existence  which  are 
believed,  to  reproduce  the  Tyrannicides  group.  Chief 
among  them  are  some  of  the  so-called  "  Farnese  Athletes  " 
[Reinach  I,  528,  2  and  6]  ;  and  the  figures  in  the  Bobo- 
lini  gardens,  Text  Illustrations  14  and  15.  The  "  Farnese 
Athletes  "  seem  to  be  characterized  by  less  vigor  and  by 
greater  concentration  of  masses,  as  if  the  artist  had  been 
mindful  of  the  heaviness  of  marble.  Two  explanations 
may  be  offered  for  this : 

i.  These  statues  are  copies  of  the  same  originals;  the 
visible  restraint  being  due  to  the  less  skilled  copyist,  who 
felt  obliged  to  concentrate  his  masses  because  he  trans- 
lated them  from  bronze  into  marble.  In  other  words,  he 
was  a  more  timid  man  than  the  sculptor  who  made  the 
other  group,  Plates  58  and  59. 


66  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

2.  The  visible  submission  to  restrictions  of  the  material 
is  a  part  of  the  original  group.  It  betokens  an  artist  still 
somewhat  under  the  influence  of  the  "  Apollos "  and  simi- 
lar statues ;  in  short,  it  speaks  in  favor  of  Antenor  soon 
after  510  as  the  author  of  the  group.  If  the  second  view 
is  right,  then  we  may  have  in  the  more  restrained  groups 
copies  of  the  originals  by  Antenor,  and  in  the  other  groups 
copies  of  the  second  monument  which  Kritios  and  Nesiotes 
made  soon  after  480  B.  C. 

That  this  second  group  was  probably  very  much  like 
the  first  group  is  pointed  out  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  161  and 
162  ;  it  would  be  proved  to  be  so  if  the  latter  of  the  above 
alternatives  is  correct. 

On  the  strength  of  the  identification  of  the  Tyrannicides 
group  as  the  work  of  Kritios  and  Nesiotes,  various  other 
works  have  been  assigned  to  these  artists  or  to  their 
school.  Among  them  is  an  interesting  athlete  from  Tar- 
sos,  now  in  Constantinople,  published  by  A.  Joubin  in 
Rev.  Arch.,  Vol.  35,  1899,  Plates  13-15,  and  p.  21.  This 
figure,  however,  if  its  restoration  is  correct,  cannot  belong 
to  the  Transitional  Period.  The  head  of  the  statue  does 
not  follow  the  direction  of  the  weight  of  the  body,  as  is 
invariably  the  case  in  early  Greek  art.  Turning  the  head 
in  another  direction  implies  the  activity  of  a  controlling 
mind,1  and  is,  therefore,  impossible  (unless  it  be  a  miracu- 
lous  exception)  in  an  age  when  the  duality  of  man  was  not 
acknowledged.2 

Joubin's  arguments  are  based  on  the  dimensions  of  the 
head  of  the  Tarsos  athlete  and  of  other  heads.  It  is  the 
regular  method  of  procedure  of  the  modern  "  progressive  " 

1  E.  von  Mach,  p.  251.     2  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2O2ff. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  67 

archaeologist,  who  reduces  everything  to  measurable  facts, 
dealing  with  the  most  divine  creations  of  Greek  art  as  so 
much  interesting  matter,  capable  of  mathematically  accu- 
rate deductions.  Art  cannot  be  treated  in  this  way  with- 
out losing  everything  that  makes  of  it  art1 

PLATE  60.  Charioteer  Of  Delphi.  Of  bronze.  Museum  in 
Delphi.  Discovered  by  the  French  in  1896.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  ijsff. ; 
Robinson  (supplement),  No.  85.  Best  illustrations,  Monuments  Piot, 
Vol.  IV,  Pis.  15  and  16,  and  pp.  i69ff.;  Reinach  II,  536,  i.  For  an 
ancient  chariot  see  Records  of  the  Past  II,  1903,  pp.  367-372,  six  cuts 
of  the  chariot  from  Nurcia,  recently  acquired  by  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  New  York. 


This  statue  is  fully  discussed,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i75ff., 
where  the  impossibility  of  identifying  it  definitely  is  men- 
tioned, and  where  the  family  resemblance  between  it  and 
the  work  of  Kalamis  is  noted.  The  Kalamis  theory  is 
vigorously  defended  by  E.  Audoin  (reviewed  A.  J.  A., 
1904,  p.  115).  He  bases  his  arguments  on  the  resem- 
blance of  the  charioteer  to  a  statue  discovered  in  Poitiers 
in  1902.  Another  Athena  has  served  Mahler  as  starting 
point  for  his  speculation  2  that  the  charioteer  ought  to  be 
assigned  to  Pythagoras.  Mahler's  view  will  appear  un- 
tenable to  all  who  accept  Waldstein's  probably  correct 
interpretation  of  the  "  Apollo  "  type,  Plates  66,  67,  as  a 
copy  of  a  statue  by  Pythagoras.  Audoin's  theory  has 
more  in  its  favor,  although  it  too  is  as  yet  nought  but  a 
theory. 

1  See  also  the  excellent  articles  by  C.  Waldstein,  The  Classical  Re- 
view, March,  1904,  and/.  H.  S.,  Vol.  XXIV,  1904,  pp. 

2  Jh.  Oesterr.     Arch.  Inst.  Ill,  1900,  pp.  142-145. 


68  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  important  points  for  the  study  of  the  statue  are : 

1.  The  dignity  of  its  appearance  and  the  simplicity  of 
its  design  ;.its  nameless  grace.1 

2.  The  softness  of  the  folds. 

3.  The  exquisite  modelling  of  the  nude. 

4.  The  dimensions  of  the  face.2     Its  long  lower  parts. 

5.  The  beautiful  feet. 

6.  The  neatly  wrought  hair  and  the  fillet. 

7.  The   fact   that    the    chariot   was  only  a    part  of  a 
group.3     For  fragments  of  the  horses  see  Monuments  Plot. 

PLATE  61.  DISCUS4  Thrower  (DiSkObolOS).  Of  marble.  British 
Museum,  London.  Discovered  in  Hadrian's  Villa  in  Tivoli,  in  1791. 
Height,  five  feet,  five  inches.  Restorations :  almost  the  entire  face 
below  the  eyes,  both  hands,  and  parts  of  the  disk,  right  knee  and 
various  small  parts.  The  head  is  antique,  and,  as  is  shown  by  its 
resemblance  to  the  Lancelotti  discus  thrower  head  (which  was  not 
broken),  is  the  proper  one.  It  belonged,  however,  to  another  copy  and 
is  broken  slightly  below  the  "  Adam's  Apple,"  while  the  London  statue 
has  lost  its  head  just  above  it.  Adding  this  head  to  the  statue  has 
given  the  discus  thrower  two  "Adam's  Apples,"  and  has  resulted  in 
a  wrong  turn  of  the  head.  The  athlete  originally  turned  his  head  back 
toward  the  discus.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i68ff.;  British  Museum  Cata- 
logue, No.  250;  Robinson,  No.  81 ;  Reinach  I,  525,  5. 

PLATE  62.  DISCUS  Thrower.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Dis- 
covered in  Hadrian's  Villa  in  1791.  Restorations:  head,  left  arm, 
right  leg  below  the  knee,  other  minor  parts,  and  almost  the  entire 
plinth.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i68ff.,  and  330;  Helbig  I,  333;  F.  W.,  No. 
451 ;  Reinach  II,  545,  5. 

1  This  was  characteristic  of  Kalamis,  see  Lucian,  Imag.  VI,  and 
Gardner,  p.  234.  2  For  dimensions  in  old  Attic  art  see  Fr.  Winter, 
Jahrbuch  II,  1887,  pp.  2i6ff.  Winter  adds  an  excellent  table  of  meas- 
urements. 3E.  von  Mach,  p.  176.  4  For  the  discovery  of  an  original 
discus  of  about  500  B.  C.  and  its  description,  see  A.J.  A.,  IV,  1900, 
P.  361- 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  69 

PLATE  63.  DiSCUS  Thrower.  Of  marble.  Lancelotti  Palace, 
Rome.  Discovered  1781  on  the  Esquiline.  Now  withheld  from  the 
public.  E.  von  Mach,  p.  330;  Reinach  I,  527,  I. 

PLATE  64.    Combination  Cast  of  Discus  Thrower  After  Myron. 

The  body  of  the  statue  in  the  Vatican,  the  head  of  the  Lancelotti 
statue.     From  Brunn-Arndt  Denkmaler,  Plate  566. 


These  statues  have  been  identified  by  means  of  descrip- 
tions by  Lucian '  and  by  Philostratos 2  as  copies  of  a 
bronze  discus  3  thrower  by  Myron.  From  these  descrip- 
tions we  know  that  the  head  was  turned  back,  as  is  the 
case  in  the  Lancelotti  copy.4 

The  essential  points  in  the  study  of  these  figures,  which 
are  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i68ff.,  are: 

1.  Reflex  action,5  the  twist  of  the  body  not  being  con- 
fined to  one  part,  as  in  the  Flying  Figure  from  Delos,  but 
being  reflected  in  the  entire  body. 

2.  Moderation  6  in  the  turn  and  the  stoop  of  the  figure, 
which  results  in  the  creation  of  reserve  force. 

The  original,  being  of  bronze,  could  do  without  the  re- 
tarding support.  The  support  is  especially  disturbing  in 
the  Vatican  copy,  where  it  spoils  the  outlines  of  the  free 
leg,  while  it  is  almost  unnoticed  in  the  London  copy, 
where  it  coincides  with  the  lines  of  the  firmly  planted 
right  leg. 

A  copy  of  the  head  of  the  Lancelotti  discus  thrower  has 

1  S.  Q.  544.  2  I,  23,  24.  3  For  the  discussion  of  the  ancient  discus 
thrower,  see  A.J.  A.,  VII  (1903),  pp.  4451!.  *  Two  statuettes  in  Munich 
and  in  Bonn  show  the  proper  direction  of  the  head.  s  See  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  i65ff.  6  On  this  score  R.  B.  Richardson  assigns  to  Myron 
a  beautiful  torso  from  Daphne.  A.J.  A.,  IX,  PL  XI,  pp.  53ff.,  X,  p.  51. 


7o 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


recently  been  recognized  by  Furtwiingler I  in  a  cast  in 
Paris,  formerly  known  as  "  Tete  de  Mercure,"  and  in  a 
head  in  Berlin.2  The  head  is  of  great  beauty,  unusually 
delicate  and  altogether  more  ethereal  than  could  be  ex- 
pected from  the  poor  illustrations  which  are  in  circulation 
of  the  Lancelotti  figure. 

PLATE  65a.  Marsyas,  probably  after  Myron.  Of  marble.  Lateran 

Museum,  Rome.  Found  1823  in  the  studio  of  an  ancient  sculptor 
on  the  Esquiline.  Restorations :  both  arms  and  lower  left  leg,  also 
the  ears  and  various  minor  parts.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i6c)ff. ;  Helbig, 
No.  661 ;  Robinson,  No.  82. 

PLATE  65b.  Statuette  Of  Marsyas.  Of  bronze.  British  Museum, 
London.  Said  to  have  been  discovered  in  Patras.  Reinach  II,  51, 
5  and;. 

Statue  and  statuette  represent  a  similar  motive,  Marsyas 
astonished  and  recoiling.  The  restorer  of  the  statue  mis- 
understood the  motive.  His  arms  belong  to  a  dancing, 
turning  figure,  such  as  are  reproduced  below.  No  such 
figures,  implying  as  they  do  the  comprehension  of  bodies 
moving  with  perfect  ease  in  limitless  space,3  occur  before 
the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  A  vase  painting  with 
Marsyas  recoiling  before  Athena,  whose  pipes  he  had  in- 
tended to  pick  up,  is  pictured  in  Helbig  under  No.  661, 
and  in  Overbeck  I,  p.  269.  In  its  moderation  (see  Plates 
6iff.,  the  Discus  Thrower)  the  Marsyas  is  truly  Myronic. 

PLATE  66.    Boxer,  probably  after  Pythagoras,  so-called  "  Apollo 

'Review,  A.  J.  A.,  VI,  pp.  2O3ff.  2In  view  of  this  discovery  the 
statement  in  E.  von  Mach,  p.  171,  concerning  the  discus  thrower  heads, 
would  seem  to  require  a  modification.  3  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  296,  297. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  ji 

With  the  OmphalOS."  Of  marble.  National  Museum,  Athens. 
Found,  badly  broken,  but  with  few  pieces  missing  except  the  feet,  and 
with  an  omphalos  not  far  from  the  statue,  in  the  excavations  of  the 
Theatre  of  Dionysos  in  1862.  Identified  as  the  statue  of  a  boxer  by 
Pythagoras  by  C.  Waldstein,  /.  H.  S.,  I,  pp.  i68ff.,  II,  pp.  322ff. 
For  extensive  bibliography  and  multitude  of  identifications  of  the 
statue  see  British  Museum  Catalogue  note  to  No.  209.  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  I72ff. ;  F.  W.,  219  ;  Robinson,  No.  92  ;  Reinach  II,  85,  7. 

PLATE  6?.   Boxer,  probably  after  Pythagoras,  so-called  Choiseul- 

GOUffler  Apollo.  Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London.  Bought  in 
Constantinople  by  Choiseul  Gouffier,  provenience  unknown  ;  deposited 
in  the  British  Museum  in  1818.  The  nose  —  some  accounts  say  the 
tip  of  the  nose — is  restored.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1731!. ;  F.  W.,  221; 
Reinach  II,  85,  10,  cf.  the  Torlonia  replica,  Reinach  II,  85,  9. 

Following  the  custom  of  calling  unidentified  male  statues 
of  vigorous  appearance  "Apollos,"  these  two  statues  are 
known  by  this  name.  The  Athenian  figure  has  been 
further  designated  by  the  object  which  was  found  near  it, 
an  omphalos,  or  navel  of  the  earth,1  while  the  London 
figure  is  known  by  the  name  of  the  man  who  bought  it  in 
Constantinople,  Choiseul  Gouffier.  To-day  although  these 
names  still  cling  to  the  statues,  it  has  been  proved  that 
the  omphalos  does  not  belong  to  the  Athenian  statue, 
that  both  figures  are  replicas  of  the  same  original  (some 
say  the  Athenian  figure  is  the  original)  and  that  the  sub- 
ject is  not  Apollo,  but  an  athlete. 

The  most  convincing  identification  of  the  statues  is 
offered  by  Waldstein,  who  believes  the  figures  are  copies 
of  the  statue  of  the  boxer  Euthymos  by  Pythagoras.  The 
importance  of  this  discovery  and  the  light  it  throws  on  the 


1  The  Omphalos  is  an  attribute  of  Apollo  as  god  of  Delphi,  which 
was  believed  to  be  the  center  of  the  earth. 


72  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

remarkable  proportions  of  the  body  are  discussed  in  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  lyzff.  Since  "Olympic  victor  statues  did  not 
always  show  the  athletes  engaged  in  the  sports  in  which 
they  had  won,"  the  sculptors  were  compelled,  "to  distin- 
guish them  by  means  of  their  physical  development."  The 
well-developed  chest  and  shoulders  and  the  conscious 
prominence  of  these  parts  characterize  the  statues  in  ques- 
tion as  boxers.  The  large  number  of  extant  copies  reveal 
the  original  to  have  been  a  famous  one.  The  style  assigns 
the  statues  to  the  Transitional  Period.  We  know  of  a 
popular  statue  of  Euthymos  belonging  to  between  480  and 
450  B.  C.  Its  sculptor  was  Pythagoras.  This  artist  is 
praised  for  the  fine  use  he  made  of  details,  especially  of 
veins,  and  for  his  careful  representation  of  the  hair.  All 
these  traits  are  found  in  the  extant  statues.  Notice,  for 
instance,  the  delicate  locks  of  hair  near  the  ears,  hardly 
visible  in  a  photograph,  and  the  veins  on  the  upper  arms 
to  indicate  the  free  coursing  of  blood  in  these  well-de- 
veloped members. 

The  opponents  of  Waldstein's  identification  disagree 
with  him  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  object  on  the  tree-trunk 
of  the  London  statue ;  the  tree-trunk  of  the  Athens  statue 
is  broken  away.1  Waldstein  explains  the  object  as  a 
leather  thong,  such  as  pugilists  wound  about  their  hands 
in  place  of  the  modern  glove  (see  the  statue  of  a  boxer 
Tarbell,  fig.  177).  Robinson,  p.  71,  says,  "This  definition 
of  the  object,  however,  is  open  to  question.  It  is  more 
probably  a  bow."  The  first  part  of  Robinson's  remark, 
that  the  object  is  indistinct,  may  be  granted  ;  the  second 
part  however,  is  wrong.  The  fact  is,  the  object  may  not 

1  But  the  fracture,  where  it  was  attached  to  the  leg,  is  still  visible. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD. 


73 


be  a  boxer's  strap,  but  it  is  surely  not  a  bow.  Anybody 
can  convince  himself  of  this  who  takes  the  trouble  of  look- 
ing at  the  original,  or  at  the  cast,  or  even  at  the  excellent 
plate,  /.  H.  S.,  I,  PL  IV.  Ordinary  photographs  are,  of 
course,  insufficient. 

PLATE  68.  Cassel  Apollo.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Cassel.  Above 
life-size.  Bought  in  Rome,  between  1770—1780,  provenience  unknown. 
It  was  badly  broken,  but  has  been  put  together  with  very  few  modern 
additions.  Robinson  (supplement)  No.  86 ;  Reinach  II,  97,  6. 

PLATE  69.  Apollo.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples.  Discovered 
in  the  House  of  the  Citharist  (excavations  begun  1853,  completed 
1868).  The  house  was  named  after  the  statue,  which  is  supposed  to 
have  held  a  cithar.  Mau-Kelsey,  pp.  352  and  536;  Reinach  11,97,  i. 

PLATE  70.     Apollo.     Of  marble.     Museo  delle  Terme,  Rome.     Of 

colossal  size.  Found  in  fragments,  and  at  different  times,  in  the  Tiber. 
"  The  right  leg  below  the  knee,  a  portion  of  the  lowest  part  of  the  left 
leg,  the  lowest  third  of  the  stump  and  the  plinth  are  modern."  (Helbig, 
No.  1028) ;  Reinach  II,  97,  8. 

These  three  Apollo  types 1  undoubtedly  belong  to  the 
Transitional  Period.  They  bear  certain  family  resemblances, 
but  exhibit  also  fundamental  points  of  difference.  All  three 
are  copies  of  possibly  bronze  originals,  and  only  one  has  re- 
tained the  material  of  the  original.  The  Cassel  Apollo  is  a 
god,  because  he  is  given  the  most  beautiful  body  the  artist 
knew  how  to  carve.  He  is  neither  brought  in  connection  with 
the  spectator,  nor  is  he  represented  as  capable  of  divine  im- 
pulses. He  is  objective  in  the  extreme.  Compared  with  the 
Apollo  of  Olympia,  Plate  86,  he  is  carved  with  greater  skill, 
but  with  much  less  feeling.  In  him,  and  in  his  kind,  we  may 

'The  term  "Apollo  type"  is  no  longer  used  in  the  sense  of  Plates 
i  iff.,  where  Apollo  was  put  in  quotations  to  indicate  "  so-called." 


74  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

see  the  precursors  of  the  Polykleitean  school,  whose  desire 
and  sole  end  was  to  represent  the  body  as  well :  as  possible. 

Very  different  is  the  Apollo  from  Pompeii.  Restore  in 
mind  his  cithar,  and  you  can  imagine  yourself  listening  with 
the  god  to  the  dying  strains  of  his  tune.  He  still  holds  the 
plectrum,  and  the  position  of  his  fingers  around  it  is  un- 
changed. This  Apollo  is  self-centered,  impersonal  and  yet 
interesting. 

The  third  Apollo  is  another  kind  of  a  god.  He  is  our  god. 
The  gentle  bend  of  his  head,  best  seen  in  a  profile  or  in  a 
back  view,  speaks  of  sympathy.  He  is  divine,  because  he  is 
extremely  human. 

On  this  account  Petersen's  suggestion,2  that  the  original 
of  the  Roman  Apollo  was  an  early  work  by  Pheidias,  has  met 
with  much  approval.  Petersen  believes  the  statue  to  be  a  copy 
of  an  Apollo  who  was  a  part  of  the  bronze  group  erected  3  in 
Delphi  from  the  spoils  of  the  battle  of  Marathon.-*  Apollo, 
Petersen  says,  laid  his  hand  kindly  on  the  shoulder  of  Mil- 
tiades,  on  whose  head  Athena  was  placing  the  wreath  of 
victory.  This  view,  however,  charming  as  it  is,  is  unfortunately 
not  supported  by  irrefutable  arguments,  the  best  point  in  its 
favor  being  that  there  are  equally  few  arguments,  or  facts,  that 
can  be  advanced  against  it. 

The  Pompeii  bronze,  with  its  stockier  proportions,  is  claimed 
for  a  Peloponnesian  school  on  the  strength  that  a  generation 
later  heavy  dimensions  were  characteristic  of  the  work  of 
Polykleitos,  the  greatest  of  the  Peloponnesians. 


'See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  248ff.  z Rom.  Mitth.  1891,  pp.  3O2ff.  and 
377ff.  3  Pausanias  X,  10,  i  ;  S.  Q.,  633.  Doubts  have  been  expressed 
as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  information  of  Pausanias.  4  This  group  must 
date  from  the  time  of  the  ascendency  of  Kimon,  whose  father  Miltiades 
was  the  prominent  figure  of  the  group. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD. 


75 


Equally  unfounded,  because  based  on  similarly  insufficient 
data,  is  Furtwangler's  '  attribution  of  the  Cassel  Apollo  to 
Myron.  The  student  of  art  fortunately  is  little  disturbed  by 
these  failures  of  definite  identifications.  He  enjoys  the  beauty 
of  the  figures  irrespective  of  the  great  reputation  of  the  men 
who  are  said  to  have  made  them. 

PLATE  71.    Nude  Statue  of  a  God  or  Hero,  sometimes  called 

"  Zeus."  Of  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich.  Colossal  statue,  formerly 
in  Villa  Albani  ;  provenience  unknown.  Acquired  for  the  Glyptothek 
in  1815.  Restorations  :  both  lower  arms  and  the  objects  they  hold,  the 
tip  of  the  nose  and  other  minor  parts.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  No. 
295;  Reinach  I,  504,  i. 

The  name  which  we  should  give  to  this  statue  depends  on 
the  attributes  which  the  figure  originally  held  in  his  hands. 
The  elbow  of  the  left  arm  is  antique,  and  shows  that  the  direc- 
tion of  the  lower  arm  is  properly  restored.  The  pronounced 
biceps  seem  to  indicate  that  the  object  in  the  hand  was  of 
considerable  weight  and  could,  therefore,  be  neither  the 
sword,  as  the  restorer  thought,  nor  the  eagle  of  Zeus,  as  has 
since  been  suggested.  The  right  arm  shows  no  muscular  ten- 
sion ;  the  hand  held  a  light  object,  the  place  of  attachment  for 
which  is  still  visible  on  the  right  leg  slightly  below  the  level  of 
the  hand.  In  the  absence  of  all  analogies  it  is,  of  course, 
futile  to  speculate  what  these  objects  might  have  been,  and 
subsequently  what  the  proper  name  of  the  statue  is. 

The  pose  of  the  figure  is  comparable  to  that  of  the  Apollo 
from  Pompeii,  Plate  69,  although  it  is  less  easy.  It  is  dignified, 
to  be  sure,  but  the  more  one  compares  it  with  other  statues  of 
the  same  general  design,  notably  the  Doryphoros  after  Poly- 
kleitos,  Plate  113,  the  more  one  realizes  its  shortcomings. 


*  Masterpieces,  pp. 


7 6        GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Head  and  legs  seem  to  indicate  a  rhythm  which  the  body 
does  not  continue.  It  is  as  if  the  artist,  by  inspiration,  had 
felt  this  rhythm,  but  had  lost  it  in  the  severe  task  of  carving  it 
in  marble.  The  front  view  of  the  body  is  stiff,  and  interesting 
only  in  conjunction  with  the  head  and  the  legs.  In  the  pro- 
file view  the  artist  has  succeeded  better,  and  there,  curiously 
enough,  only  by  a  peculiar  device.  He  has  made  the  "  hero  " 
throw  out  his  chest,  giving  him  a  delicate  curve  from  the 
shoulders  to  the  small  of  the  back  and  out  again  to  the  hips. 
The  additional  mass,  however,  of  projecting  pectoral  muscles 
and  the  surrounding  parts  may  account  for  the  difficulty  the 
sculptor  had  with  the  front  view. 

The  statue  is  also  interesting  as  being  one  of  the  first  good 
statues  of  bearded  men.1  It  is  noticeable  here  that  the  beard 
is  represented  because  it  belonged  to  the  type,  and  not  be- 
cause it  offered  the  artist  an  especially  beautiful  motive. 

PLATE  72.  Spinario  (Boy  with  a  Thorn  in  his  Foot).  Of  bronze. 
Palazzo  del  Conservatori  on  the  Capitoline,  Rome.  First  heard  of  in 
1471,  when  Sixtus  IV  founded  the  Capitoline  Collection.  Helbig,  617; 
F.  W.,  215;  Robinson,  91;  Overbeck  II,  pp.  i82ff.,  with  full  bibli- 
ography, p.  1 86,  fig.  1 86  ;  Collignon  I,  pp.  4i6ff.  For  comparison  of 
the  head  with  that  of  an  Ephebe  in  Spain  (picture  of  Madrid  Ephebe) 
see  Rev.  Arch.,  Vol.  39,  pp.  322ff.;  Reinach  I,  p.  344,  6. 

Early  Greek  sculpture  runs  along  types.  It  is  unusual  to 
find  only  one  representative  of  a  class,  and  when  one  does 
find  a  statue  standing  alone,  one  is  apt  to  be  at  a  loss  how 
to  account  for  it. 

The  Spinario  is  such  a  statue.  Scholars  are  still  undecided 
and  of  many  varied  opinions,  in  spite  of  the  momentary  truce 
which  has  been  declared,  everything  having  been  said  that  can 

1  Compare  this  head  with  the  head  of  Zeus,  Plate  49. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD. 


77 


be  said.  There  are  two  camps.  The  ones  —  their  champion 
is  Overbeck  —  believe  that  the  Roman  Spinario  is  a  very  late 
and  reactionary  adaptation  of  a  Hellenistic  original,  more  ac- 
curately copied  in  the  London  Spinario,  Plate  284.  They 
say  the  piece  is  a  genre  group  and,  as  such,  impossible  before 
the  autumn  days  of  Greek  Sculpture.  The  London  statue  is, 
as  all  agree,  a  Hellenistic  work.  The  Roman  bronze,  which 
represents  the  same  motive,  is  an  adaptation  of  it,  made  at  a 
time  when  there  was  a  craze  for  "  archaic  "  art.  Such  a  time 
occurred  during  the  activity  of  the  school  of  Pasiteles  (see 
below).  Pasiteles  and  his  followers  chose  to  carve  well-devel- 
oped conceptions  in  old  and  slightly  halting  forms.  Such 
forms  are  found  in  the  bronze  Spinario.  He  is,  therefore,  the 
adaptation  of  a  Hellenistic  type  carved  in  the  retrospective 
style  of  Pasiteles. 

The  opponents  of  this  view,  with  Welters  (F.  W.,  215)  as 
spokesman,  object  on  several  grounds.  In  the  first  place,  not 
only  the  face,  but  all  the  forms  show  notable  points  of  re- 
semblance with  the  Olympia  sculptures.1  Secondly,  the  hair 
is  far  from  being  noteworthy  for  its  casual  and  natural  ap- 
pearance, as  is  the  case  in  the  Hellenistic  age,  which  has 
left  its  unmistakable  traces  in  the  Pasitelean  works.  Thirdly, 
the  statue  need  not  be  understood  as  genre.  A  very  definite 
incident  may  be  represented,  say  a  young  Olympic  victor 
winning  the  race  in  spite  of  a  thorn  in  his  foot.  » 

Thus  far  the  arguments  pair  off  about  even.     Zimmermann,2 

however,  has  added  an  observation  which  may  be  turned  into 

a  more  decisive  argument.     The  long  hair  of  the  Spinario  does 

no*  fall,  as  it  would  naturally  fall,  over  the  cheeks,  but  down 

leek,  as  if  the  boy  were  standing  erect.    It  may  be  granted 

For  the  face,  see  the  Apollo,  Plate  86 ;  for  the  form  of  the  body, 
crouching  boy.     2  Knackf  uss  und  Zimmermann,  Vol.  I,  p.  78. 


78  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

that  Pasiteles  (or  his  followers)  were  capable  of  representing 
the  old  Greek  forms,  that  they  knew  how  to  change  the  short 
hair  of  the  London  statue  to  the  long  hair  worn  in  earlier  cen- 
turies, that  they  even  knew  how  to  carve  it  with  accuracy  ;  but 
it  is  incredible  that  they  should  have  made,  in  the  advanced 
archaistic  age  in  which  they  lived,  the  change  from  short  to 
long  hair  without  realizing  that  the  long  locks  would  either 
obstruct  the  view  of  the  face,  or  would  have  to  be  carved  un- 
naturally. If  they  did  not  want  to  obstruct  the  view,  they 
might  have  tied  the  hair  up  with  a  ribbon.1  This  they  have 
not  done,  so  that  we  may  see  in  the  Spinario  the  work  of  a 
man  familiar  with  making  standing  figures  and  unacquainted, 
as  yet,  with  the  changes  that  a  drooping  posture  demanded. 
The  arrangement  of  the  hair  is  in  keeping  with  the  unruffled 
folds  over  the  arm  of  Orestes,  Plate  55,  or  of  the  figure  mount- 
ing a  chariot,  Plate  56. 

A  further  argument  against  the  view  of  Overbeck  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  one  has  the  greatest  difficulty  in  seeing  the  face 
of  the  Spinario.  From  no  point  does  it  appear  to  its  best 
advantage.  The  forms  of  the  boy  also,  which  are  lovely  and 
pleasing  in  lines,  are  not  always  convincing.2  The  very  oppo- 
site we  expect  of  the  Pasitelian  school.  Their  composition 
would  have  been,  owing  to  long  training,  immaculate,  while 
their  modelling  of  detailed  parts  might  have  been  wanting  in 
delicacy. 

In  view  of  all  these  observations,  the  fact  seems  to  be  estab- 
lished that  the  Spinario  was  made  during  the  Transitional 
Period,  and  that  it  proved  popular  and  was  frequently  copied,3 
not  indeed  accurately,  for  its  shortcomings  were  realized. 


1  Compare  Plates  479  and  480.  2  Overbeck  says  the  statue  was  in- 
tended to  be  seen  from  below.  Even  this  does  not  give  one  a  good 
view  of  the  face,  while  it  loses  much  of  the  charm  of  the  present  aspect. 
3  For  a  list  of  copies  see  Helbig  and  Overbeck. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  jg 

Our  interest  is  not  so  much  in  what  the  boy  is  doing,  as  in 
the  boy  himself.  (The  opposite  is  true  of  the  London  mar- 
ble.) We  are  apt  to  think  of  him  as  he  would  appear  if  he 
stood  erect,  and  we  know  instinctively  that  he  would  be  fully 
as  lovely  as  the  original  of  the  girl,  Plate  73. 

PLATE  73.  Victor  Statue  Of  a  Girl  Racer.  Of  marble.  Vatican, 
Rome.  Exact  date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Bought  for  the 
Vatican  Museum  by  Pope  Clement  XIV  (1769-1775)  from  the  Bar- 
berini  family,  whose  estate  on  the  Palatine  embraced  the  area  of  the 
old  stadium  of  Domitian,  in  which  girls'  races  were  held.  Restora- 
tions: both  arms,  except  the  parts  close  to  the  shoulders,  the  nose  and 
parts  on  the  plinth. 

The  marble  statue  even  more  than  its  photograph  suggests 
a  bronze  original.  By  removing  the  support,1  the  figure  gains 
"an  air  of  greater  freedom  and  nobility,"  and  by  changing  the 
wrongly  restored  arms  to  positions  expressive  of  eager  atten- 
tion, waiting  for  the  signal  for  the  race  to  start,  a  glimpse 
of  the  surpassing  beauty  of  the  original  is  gained. 

Helbig  says,  "  The  still  somewhat  stiff  style  agrees  admirably 
with  the  girlish  naivete,  which  the  artist  seeks  to  express." 
The  subject  is  perfectly  suited  to  the  style  of  the  sculptor.  It 
is  this  fortunate,  and  no  doubt  accidental,  unity  that  makes  of 
this  statue  a  masterpiece ;  but  it  cannot  blind  us  against  the 
fact  that  the  sculptor  himself  was  yet  far  from  being  what  we 
call  a  master.  Placed  before  another  task,  for  instance,  of 
posing  his  girl  like  the  Spinario,  Plate  72,  he  might  have 
failed. 

To  the  careful  observer  the  unnaturally  high  ears  and  the 


1  Unnecessary  in  bronze.  The  palm  branch  on  the  support  shows 
that  the  copyist,  who  knew  the  original,  understood  it  to  be  a  Victor 
statue. 


8o  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

long  chin  are  the  clearest  indications  of  the  early  origin  of  the 
figure.  The  modelling  of  the  nude  is  exquisite,  the  legs  and 
knees  being  most  especially  beautiful.  The  face  is  interest- 
ing, but,  in  keeping  with  the  time,  not  expressive.  The  small 
mouth  deserves  much  attention. 

Like  the  Spinario,  Plate  72,  this  girl  has  been  assigned  '  to 
the  eclectic  school  of  Pasiteles.  Since  the  Spinario,  however, 
cannot  belong  to  that  school,  as  was  proved  above,  there  is  no 
further  reason  to  doubt  the  origin  also  of  the  racing  girl  in 
the  Transitional  Period. 

PLATE  74.  So-called  "  Penelope."  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Restorations :  the  head,  which 
does  not  belong  to  the  statue  ;  the  shawl,  falling  on  the  shoulders  from 
the  head ;  the  right  hand ;  the  right  knee ;  both  feet ;  and  the  rock,  which 
has  been  supplied  instead  of  the  original  chair  with  the  work-basket 
underneath.  Helbig,  191  (cf.  92  and  589) ;  F.  W.,  211,  who  wrongly 
believes  the  head  belongs  to  the  statue;  Robinson,  95  ;  Reinach  I,  504 
(cf.  II,  689,  i  and  2)  ;  Knackfuss-Zimmerman  I,  p.  78,  fig.  55  from  the 
restored  cast.  For  the  head,  Berlin  Catalogue,  603,  see  Plate  453  ; 
all  the  illustrative  material  Antike  Denkmaler  I,  Pis.  31  and  32,  head 
p.  17;  reproduced, Text  Illustration  23. 

The  identification  of  this  statue  as  Penelope  rests  upon  an 
Athenian  vase  painting  (Helbig  I,  p.  54,  fig.  7)  and  upon  two 
Graeco-Roman  terra-cotta  reliefs  on  which  Penelope  is  thus 
represented.  The  type,  however,  is  a  common  one  also  for 
other  figures,  Elektra  for  instance,  on  an  inscribed  terra-cotta 
relief2  (Overbeck  I,  p.  220,  fig.  54),  while  several  fragments 
of  similar  statues  are  extant.  The  work-basket  under  the  chair, 
which  it  is  now  sure  ought  to  be  supplied  for  the  modern 
rock,  suggests,  by  its  correspondence  to  grave  reliefs  (see  so- 

1  Overbeck  II,  p.  475.  2  Rayet,  Catalogue  de  la  Collection  a"  Antiquites 
(of  the  Louvre)  doubts  the  genuineness  of  the  inscription  on  the  relief. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  81 

called  "  Ino  Leukothea "  relief  Plate  3675),  that  also  the 
Vatican  figure  may  have  served  as  a  grave  monument. 

The  wrong  head  and  right  hand  have  introduced  a  disturb- 
ing element.  The  beautiful  head  in  Berlin,  Plate  453,  ought 
to  be  supplied,  and  be  bent  until  it  rests  easily  against  the 
knuckles  of  the  hand.  At  once  the  statue  gains  in  unity. 
This  is  best  seen  in  the  cast  in  Bonn  (Knackfuss-Zimmermann 
I,  p.  78),  where  these  restorations  l  have  been  carried  out, 
and  in  theText  Illustration  No.  23. 

With  all  the  charm  that  this  new  Penelope  possesses,  there 
remains  a  decided  awkwardness  of  pose,  which  is  the  more 
noticeable  as  the  pose  is  intended  to  be  easy  and  fortuitous. 
The  sculptor,  no  doubt,  had  difficulties  in  distributing  the 
masses  of  a  body  which  he  had  not  yet  studied  in  any  except 
in  erect  poses. 

The  technique  of  the  figure  is  further  remarkable  in  that 
it  is  flat.  Only  one  side  is  finished,  the  other  is  almost 
smooth,  as  if  it  had  been  placed  against  a  wall.  If  it  was 
surrounded  by  a  shrine,  as  many  grave  reliefs  were  (see  Grave 
Reliefs  below)  the  effect  was  that  of  a  high  relief.  The  care- 
lessly wrought  left  hand  and  wrist  suggest  a  high  position  for 
the  monument,  where  the  seat  hid  it  from  view.  The  folds  of 
the  drapery  on  the  upper  part  of  the  body  are  admirably 
graceful  and  easy. 

PLATE  75.  So-called  Hestia.  Of  Marble.  Torlonia  Museum, 
Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in  Giustini- 
ani  collection.  The  only  restorations  are  the  end  of  the  nose  and  the 
forefinger  of  the  left  hand.  Robinson,  No.  84  ;  F.  W.,  No.  212 ;  Furt- 
wangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  23,  8t  ;  Reinach  I,  449,  7  (under  the  name 
of  Vestal). 


'All  except  the  chair  to  take  the  place  of  the  rock. 


82  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

This  statue  is  so  beautiful  that  Wolters  (No.  212)  believes 
it  is  an  original  Greek  temple  image.  He  answers  the  objec- 
tions of  those  who  see  in  it  a  marble  copy  of  a  bronze  original, 
by  referring  them  to  the  Aigina  marbles,  Plates  78  to  83,  which 
show  the  same  sharp  eyebrows  and  eyelids,  and  the  same  wiry 
treatment  of  the  hair.  His  point,  however,  although  apparently 
well  taken,  carries  not  sufficient  weight,  because  he  concedes 
in  it  the  reminders  of  bronze  technique  '  in  the  statue.  To 
decide  to-day  whether  these  reminders  are  due  to  the  original 
sculptor  who  carried  his  bronze  technique  over  into  marble,  as 
did  the  Aiginetans,  or  whether  they  are  due  to  the  copyist  who 
carefully  kept  the  traces  of  the  metal  technique  of  the  orig- 
inal, is  obviously  impossible. 

The  name  of  the  statue  is  equally  indeterminable.  Robin- 
son well  remarks  that  "  the  severity  which  characterizes  the 
statue  both  in  the  face  and  in  the  marked  simplicity  of  the 
drapery  .  .  .  was  not  wholly  intentional  on  the  part  of 
the  sculptor,  but  rather  that  it  marks  a  certain  stage  in  the 
development  of  Greek  sculpture."  As  long  as  it  was  believed 
to  be  intentional,  the  name  Hestia 2  or  Vestal  Virgin  seemed 
to  be  the  only  appropriate  one.  The  discovery,  however,  of 
the  Olympia  figures,  Plate  84ff.,  especially  of  the  figures  of  the 
East  Pediment  and  of  the  metopes,  has  shown  that  this  was 
the  characteristic  way  of  this  period  of  representing  all  draped 
women.  In  the  absence  of  attributes  or  other  distinguishing 
marks,  it  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  give  a  definite  name  to 
the  statue. 

Equally  impossible  is  the  attribution  of  the  statue  to  a  defi- 
nite artist.  Robinson  compares  its  face  with  the  so-called 
Apollo  with  the  Omphalos,  Plate  66,  and  tentatively  suggests 

'Very  noticeable  in  the  curls  falling  on  the  neck.  Compare  also 
the  Cassel  Apollo,  Plate  68.  2  Hestia  is  the  Latin  Vesta. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD,  83 

Kalamis.  Kalamis,  however,  is  out  of  the  question,  if  the 
correspondence  in  the  faces  is  really  as  strong  as  Robinson 
believes,  which  is  extremely  doubtful ;  for  the  "  Apollo  "  is 
more  probably  the  work  of  Pythagoras  of  Rhegion.  The 
statue  has,  moreover,  in  spite  of  all  its  dignity,  little  of  the 
inexplicable  charm  which  we  are  told  '  marked  the  figures  of 
women  by  Kalamis. 

A  comparison  of  this  statue  with  the  Charioteer  of  Delphi, 
Plate  60,  is  very  instructive.  Softness  there  has  been  substi- 
tuted for  sharp  angularity  here,  and  slimness  has  taken  the 
place  of  the  strong  physical  development  of  this  woman. 

The  motive  of  the  hand  resting  on  the  hip  is  here  met  with 
for  the  first  time.  It  was  to  play  a  prominent  part  in  Greek 
art.2  Compare  the  right  arm  of  this  figure  with  the  left  arm 
of  the  "Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195,  and  notice  the  mastery  of 
the  fourth  century  sculptor  as  compared  with  the  first  atempt 
of  the  "  Hestia  "  artist. 

Another  interesting  comparison  is  made  between  this  figure 
and  the  similar  torso  in  Copenhagen,  Plate  77.  There  the 
straight  masses  of  the  heavy  folds  are  most  pleasingly  broken 
by  the  projecting  left  knee.  Here,  as  there,  the  weight  of  the 
body  seems  to  rest  on  the  right  leg,  but  the  left  leg  is  not  suf- 
ficiently bent  to  become  noticeable  in  the  lines  of  the  drapery. 
The  body,  in  fact,  is  not  revealed  under  the  skirt  of  Hestia,3 
and  if  it  were  not  for  the  mastery  with  which  the  folds  are 
carved,  we  should  be  tempted  to  compare  the  "  Hestia  "  with 
the  "  Hera"  of  Samos,  Plate  22 — however,  only  to  be  con- 
vinced of  the  wonderful  advance  which  the  artists  have  made, 


1  Lucian,  Imag.  VI.  2  About  one  thousand  years  later  Donatello 
struggled  again  with  this  problem.  3The  garment  does  not  reach  to 
the  floor.  The  variety  of  the  bottom  folds,  found  in  later  statues,  is 
therefore  completely  absent  here. 


84  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

and  to  be  led  to  a  fuller  realization  of  the  large  number  of 
things  which  they  had  to  learn  before  they  could  carve  really 
masterful  draped  female  figures. 

The  motive  of  the  drapery  of  "  Hestia,"  the  Doric  chiton 
without  an  upper  garment,  occurs  on  the  Herculaneum  "  Dan- 
cers," Plate  76,  on  the  figure  from  Copenhagen,  Plate  77,  on 
the  Athena  Parthenos,  Plates  g6ff.,  and  on  the  Maidens  (Ka- 
ryatides)  of  the  Erechtheion,  Plate  166,  which  latter  figure, 
more  than  any  other,  shows  the  modifications  of  which  the 
type  was  capable.  A  very  pleasant  motive  is  found  in  the 
Herculaneum  figures,  now  in  Dresden,  of  dignified  women 
(Plate  208)  where  the  outer  garment  is  added.  The  folds  of 
the  himation  pulled  about  the  figure  enabled  the  artist  to  ex- 
press some  of  the  feelings  of  the  person  that  wore  it. 

PLATE  76.  Statues  of  Women  Dressed  in  the  Doric  Chiton,  so- 
called  Dancers.  Of  Bronze.  Museum  in  Naples.  Discovered  in 
Herculaneum  during  the  early  excavations.  Reinach  I,  457,  5  and  6; 
II,  425,  8  ;  I,  457,  2.  Cf.  similar  bronzes,  Reinach  II,  643,  1-3,  6-9. 

These  three  bronzes,  doubtless  copies  or  imitations,  more 
or  less  accurate,  of  Greek  works  of  the  Transitional  Period, 
show  many  points  in  common  with  the  Giustiniani  "  Hestia." 
They  lack,  however,  her  noble  dignity  ',  and  seem  to  be  show- 
works,  made  for  the  delight  of  a  wealthy  Roman,  rather 
than  conveyers  of  inspired  ideas  on  the  part  of  the  artist. 
Figures  like  these  frequently  occur  as  mirror  handles2  or 
other  supports,  and  it  is  perhaps  not  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  these  three  figures  from  Herculaneum  are  enlargements 
of  such  little  figures  and  not  copies  of  original  statues.  The 
heads  of  all  the  "  Dancers  "  follow  the  weight  of  the  body,  a 

1  On  the  quality  of  these  bronzes  see  Otto  Benndorf,  reviewed 
A.J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  467.  2  See  Baumeister  s.  v.  Spiegel. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  85 

fact  which  speaks  in  favor  of  copies  rather  than  of  late  imita- 
tions of  earlier  works. 

Another  possibility  is  not  excluded,  namely,  that  these 
three  '  figures  were  made  to  illustrate  the  wearing  of  the  old 
Doric  chiton.  Whether  intended  for  this  purpose  or  not, 
they  serve  it  well.  The  Doric  chiton  is  a  large  sheet,  about 
twice  as  wide  as  the  person  is  tall,  and  one  or  two  heads  longer 
than  the  height  of  the  wearer.  When  the  lady  intended  to 
put  it  on,  she  turned  over  an  apotygma  or  bib,  and  then 
slipped  it  on  from  her  left.2  She  clasped  it  on  her  shoulder, 
tight  around  the  neck  and  loose  in  front,  with  the  result  of  a 
triangular  fold,  as  is  seen  in  all  three  of  these  statues.3  This 
is  the  garment  as  worn  by  figure  one.  The  other  two  have 
proceeded  slightly  differently.  In  the  turning  over  of  the 
apotygma  they  have  turned  over  less  of  the  half  of  the  gar- 
ment that  makes  the  front.  This  made  the  dress,  when  they 
clasped  it  on  the  shoulders,  much  longer  in  front  than  in  the 
back,  where  it  just  touched  the  floor.  In  order  to  get  rid  of 
the  superfluous  length  in  front  they  belted  4  the  garment  and 
then  pulled  the  dress  up  over  this  belt  to  fall  in  a  kolpos  (bag) 
below  the  edge  of  the  apotygma.  Great  variety  could  thus 
be  introduced  by  making  the  apotygma,  and  consequently  the 
kolpos,  larger  or  smaller.  The  length  of  the  apotygma  in  the 
back  remained  the  same.  The  length  is  seen  in  number 
three. 

PLATE  77.    Torso  of  a  Woman  Draped  in  the  Doric  Chiton.    Of 

marble.     Glyptothek    Ny  Carlsberg  (Copenhagen).     Date  and   place 

'And  the  other  three  found  with  them.  2This  left  the  garment 
open  on  the  right  side  (cf.  Lemnian  Athena,  PI.  95).  Sometimes  it 
was  sewed  up  from  the  bottom  to  about  the  waistline.  3  These  folds 
show  well  also  on  the  Olympia  metopes,  Plates  90  and  91.  4  Possibly 
also  No.  i  has  a  belt  under  the  apotygma,  but  she  has  no  folds  pulled 
over  it. 


86  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  discovery  not  known.  Height  1.57  M.  (official  catalogue,  No.  24). 
For  the  separately  inserted  left  fore  arm,  now  lost,  see  the  practice  of 
the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25-30,  and  the  torsi  from  Delos,  Plate 
31 ;  Reinach  II,  644,  6. 

This  statue  is  especially  interesting,  when  it  is  compared 
with  the  Giustiniani  "  Hestia,"  Plate  75,  and  the  Maiden  from 
the  Erechtheion,  Plate  166,  between  which  it  holds  a  middle 
place.  There  is  sufficient  variety  here  to  'relieve  the  monotony 
of  the  former  figure  and,  on  the  other  hand,  less  fussiness 
around  the  hips  than  threatens  the  harmony  of  lines  in  the 
Maiden.  The  apotygma  shows  a  few  more  folds  than  that  of 
the  "  Hestia,"  but  is  far  from  being  as  graceful  as  that  of  the 
Athenian  girl.  The  length  of  the  garment,  reaching  to  the 
floor,  and  the  protruding  toes  are  noteworthy  motives,  which 
might  have  given  the  artist  the  opportunity  of  introducing 
beautiful  folds.  The  greater  bend  of  the  left  leg  completely 
changed  the  treatment  of  the  garment  on  this  side.  Yet, 
neither  opportunity  did  the  artist  know  how  to  improve. 

This  statue,  therefore,  illustrates  the  transition  from  the 
slightly  stiff  to  the  perfectly  easy.  In  some  ways  it  is  more 
advanced  than  the  Lemnian  Athena,  Plate  95,  which  is  treated 
in  the  next  period  as  the  work  of  Pheidias.  In  spirit,  how- 
ever, it  belongs  so  unmistabably  to  the  Transitional  Period 
that  it  finds  its  proper  place  here  and  nowhere  else. 

PLATES  78-83.  Figures  from  the  East  and  the  West  Pediments 
Of  the  Temple  Of  Aigina.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich.  The 
majority  of  these  figures  were  discovered  on  Aigina  in  1811.  They 
were  acquired  in  1812  for  the  crown  prince  of  Bavaria,  afterward  King 
Ludwig  I,  and  removed  to  Rome  in  1815.  Here  Thorwaldsen  modelled 
the  restorations,  while  the  execution  in  marble  was  entrusted  to  various 
other  sculptors  under  the  supervision  of  Wagner.  The  groups  were 
removed  to  Munich  in  1828.  For  complete  bibliography  see  Furt- 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  87 

wangler,  Catalogue,  pp.  77ff.,  which  includes  the  most  perfect  descrip- 
tion and  discussion  of  the  sculptures.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i82ff.  (see 
also  pp.  I78ff.);  Robinson,  Nos.  60  A-O ;  F.  W.,  69-85;  Reinach  I, 
8i5ff.,  with  some  inaccurate  restorations.  For  the  more  recent  dis- 
coveries see  A.J.  A.,  Reviews,  V,  1901,  p.  338  and  VI,  1902,  pp.  68ff. 
For  the  date  of  the  sculptures  see  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  pp.  i6iff., 
who  says,  "either  just  before  or  soon  after  480  B.  C.";  Gardner,  p. 
201,  Tarbell,  p.  156,  who  place  it  just  before  480  B.  C. ;  Overbeck  I,  p. 
164,  about  $00  B.  C.;  E.  von  Mach.  p.  182,  later  than  the  Persian 
wars.  Restorations :  for  all  the  details  see  Furtwangler's  Catalogue. 

All  the  facts  concerning  the  Aiginetan  figures  are  so  com- 
pletely and  so  clearly  set  forth  in  Furtwangler's  Catalogue, 
that  one  might  say  the  last  word  was  spoken,  if  it  were  not 
for  the  more  recent  discoveries.  These  new  discoveries,  how- 
ever, have  hardly  been  sufficient  to  warrant  noticeable  changes 
in  his  arguments,  which,  in  so  far  as  they  have  not  been  noted 
in  the  discussion  of  these  pediments,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  i82ff., 
are  as  follows  : 

1.  The  present  arrangement  of  the  figures,  parallel  to  the 
wall,  is  wrong.     They  ought  to  be  arranged  slantingly,  as  is 
proved  by  their  uneven  corrosion  and  by  the  fact  that  they  are 
finished  all  round.     The  fallen  men  ought  to  be  pushed  close 
into  the  corners. 

2.  This  makes  it  possible  to  put  many  more  figures  in  the 
pediments,  probably  even  more  than  fourteen. 

3.  By  the  slanting  arrangement  of  the  figures  the  group 
gains  in  vitality. 

Furtwangler's  observation  that  the  figures  originally  were 
arranged  slanting  to  the  wall  is  extremely  interesting.  It  sug- 
gests that  the  Aigina  pediments  were  carved  under  the  same 
influences  that  were  in  force  when  some  of  the  Treasury 
friezes  in  Delphi  were  carved  (see  Plate  43).  It  means  the 
denial  of  the  particular  space  which  the  figures  filled  rather 


88  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

than  the  submission  to  its  limitations,  which  characterizes  the 
Akropolis  Sculptures. 

That  such  an  arrangement  would  have  broken  the  present 
monotony  is  self-evident.  It  may,  however,  be  doubted 
whether  much  life  would  have  been  added.  The  fundamental 
defect  of  these  figures,  which  are  "  pictures  of  men  " x  and  not 
real  living  men,  remains  the  same. 

The  interpretation  of  the  "  Kneeling  Spearman,"  Plate  78, 
as  running 2  substitutes  one  defect  in  the  endeavor  of  removing 
another.  Because  a  spearman  seems  out  of  place  behind  a 
bowman,  Kalkmann  and  Furtwangler  see  in  him  the  last  in- 
stance of  the  archaic  representation  of  running^  which  drew 
the  figures  as  kneeling.  Such  a  decided  archaism  seems  very 
much  out  of  place  in  Aigina  with  its  clear  observation  of  na- 
ture. Kalkmann  bases  his  argument  on  the  fact  that  the  knee 
of  the  Spearman  does  not  touch  the  floor.  This  fact,  how- 
ever, is  capable  of  another  interpretation,  which  reflects  more 
credibly  on  the  sculptors.  If  this  figure  actually  had  knelt, 
it  would  have  appeared  from  below,  owing  to  the  projecting 
cornice,  as  if  it  was  sunk  deep  into  the  floor.  In  order  to 
appear  to  be  kneeling  on  the  floor,  the  knee  had  to  be  slightly 
raised  above  the  floor.  It  is  this  same  accurate  observation 
of  appearances  that  accounts  for  the  little  block  interposed 
between  the  capital  of  a  column  and  the  architrave  of  a  good 
Greek  temple.  Only  by  raising  the  architrave  above  the  capi- 
tal does  it  seem,  from  below,  to  rest  on  it. 

The  essentials  for  the  study  of  these  figures,  discussed 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  1828".,  are  : 

i.  The  inadequacy  of  the  large  center  figure  of  Athena, 
who  takes  no  part  in  the  battle. 

'E.  von  Mach,  p.  201.  2  Kalkmann,  Jahrbuch,  1895,  pp.  65,  74. 
3  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  118,  119. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  89 

2.  The  unconvincing  arrangement  of  the  battle  scene  in 
two  hostile  camps,  which  results  in  only  a  few  of  the  warriors 
having  opponents. 

3.  The  satisfactory  filling  of  the  corners,  as  furthest  from 
the  mele'e,  with  wounded  men. 

4.  The  superiority  of  the  East  Pediment  figures  over  those 
of  the  West  Pediment. 

5.  The  most  interesting  figure  is  the  fallen  warrior,  Plate 
80.     The  double  twist,  the  inability  of  the  artist  to  carve  an 
easy  transition  from  the  abdomen  to  the  breast,  and  his  suc- 
cessful device  of  hiding  his  failure  by  means  of  the  arm  are 
noteworthy. 

6.  The  attention  paid  to  details  even  on  the  backs  of  the 
figures,1  which  is  in  strong  contrast  to  the  Olympia  sculptures, 
Plates  84-89. 

7.  Reflex  action  and  anima,  the  breath  of  life,  which  char- 
acterized Myron,  are  absent  from  most  of  the  Aigina  figures, 
notably  the  Standing  Spearman,  Plate  81. 

8.  The    eclectic  use  made   of  the  curve  of  the  mouth,2 
wrongly  called  the  "  archaic  smile." 

9.  The   incongruity   between   the   freedom   of    the    male 
figures  and  the  constrained  representation  of  Athena,  who  may 
be  compared  to  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates   256°.,  and  the 
women  on  the  Harpy  Tomb,  Plate  53. 

10.  From  the  presence  of  Athena  in  both   pediments   it 
used  to  be  argued  that  the  temple  was  dedicated  to  her.     The 
fallacy   of  this   argument   might  have  appeared  even  before 


1  The  importance  of  this  all  around  finish  is  not  lessened  by  Furt- 
vrangler's  observation  that  the  figures  were  placed  on  a  slant.     Even  in 
such  a  position  there  is  a  considerable  portion  of  the  figure  that  does 
not  show,  and  that  consequently  could  be  slighted  with  impunity. 

2  For  the  representation  of  the  mouths  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  I54ff. 


9o 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Furtwangler  discovered  the  Aphaia  inscriptions,1  because 
several  instances 2  are  known  of  temple  deities  not  represented 
in  the  pediments  of  their  sanctuaries. 

PLATES  84-89.  Figures  of  the  East  and  of  the  West  Pediments 
Of  the  Temple  Of  Zeus  in  Olympia.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Olympia. 
Discovered  during  the  German  excavations  of  Olympia,  from  1875  to 
1 88 1.  Olympia,  die  Ergebnisse  der  von  dent  deutschen  Reich  verans- 
talten  Ausgrabungen,  edited  by  Ernst  Curtius  and  F.  Adler.  Robin- 
son, 65  and  66,  with  excellent  references;  F.  W.,  245ff. ;  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  i8ff.  There  are  no  restorations  on  the  marbles,  but  many  sug- 
gested restorations  of  the  pediments.  A  list  of  references  to  the  earlier 
restorations  is  given  by  Waldstein,  J.  H.  S.,  V,  p.  198;  and  fourteen 
restorations  of  the  Eastern  Pediment  are  pictured  in  Jahrbuch  XII, 
1897,  on  plate  facing  p.  169.  Several  good  articles,  Jahrbuch  VI,  91  ; 
J.  H.S.,  X,  pp.  noff.  Treu's  final  and  irrefutable  arguments3  for  the 
arrangement  of  the  centaurs  on  the  Western  Pediment,  Jahrbuch  III, 
1888,  pp.  I75ff.  Supplementary  reasons,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  I94ff. 
The  best  article  on  the  East  Pediment,  Konrad  Wernicke,  Jahrbuch 
XII,  1897,  pp.  i69ff.  Excellent  plate  of  the  restorations,  shading  off 
the  restored  parts,  Overbeck  I,  facing  p.  309;  reproduced,  E.  von 
Mach,  Plate  XIV,  figures  xa  and  ib.  Head  of  Theseus,  E.  von  Mach, 
facing  p.  1 88. 

Treu's  final  arrangements  of  both  pediments  (see  E.  von 
Mach,  Plate  XIV)  may  be  considered  to  be  substantially 
accurate.  The  only  doubt  attaches  (in  the  East  Pediment) 
to  the  distribution  of  the  figures  on  either  side  of  Zeus. 
Pausanias  (V,  10,  6ff.)  says  Oinomaos  stood  to  the  right  of 
Zeus ;  and  this  is  variously  interpreted  as  meaning  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  spectator  or  of  Zeus.4  Treu  says  the 

JE.  von  Mach,  p.  182.  2  See  Tarbell  &  Bates,  A.  J.  .4.,  Series  I, 
Vol.  VIII,  pp.  iSff.  3  Strangely  enough,  not  considered  in  their  full 
bearing  by  Robinson,  who  clings  to  Treu's  earlier  arrangement,  after 
Treu  himself  has  given  it  up  as  impossible.  4  Right  and  left  are  used 
here,  unless  otherwise  stated,  with  reference  to  the  figures  and  not  to 
the  spectator. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD. 


91 


spectator  must  be  meant,  because  Pelops,  as  the  designated 
victor  in  the  race,  ought  to  stand  on  the  right  of  Zeus.  Wer- 
nicke  in  his  very  illuminating  article,  referred  to  above,  takes 
the  other  view.  He  follows  Pausanias  literally  and  succeeds 
in  making  a  most  convincing  restoration.  The  only  difficulty 
is  that  there  are  doubts  as  to  the  possibility  of  placing  the 
figure  he  calls  Myrtilos  where  he  puts  it.  Treu  says  it  is  im- 
possible, as  proved  by  experiments  with  the  casts  in  Dresden. 
Wernicke  contends  that  the  casts,  owing  to  restorations,  may 
be  somewhat  larger  than  were  the  originals,  and  that  his  ar- 
rangement is  not  impossible. 

The  charm  of  Wernicke's  restoration  consists  in  his  break- 
ing the  monotony  of  the  center  group.  Slightly  in  front,  and 
a  little  to  the  right,  of  Zeus,  he  places  an  altar.  Oinomaos  and 
Pelops  are  advancing  toward  it.  This  is  possible,  because  it  is 
known,  from  the  position  of  the  rivet  holes  in  the  backs  of 
these  two  figures,  that  they  did  not  stand  parallel  to  the  wall, 
Oinomaos  even  less  so  than  Pelops.  Treu  placing  the  king  to 
the  left  of  Zeus,  says  he  is  turning  his  back  upon  the  god ; 
Wernicke,  placing  him  to  the  right  and  a  little  in  front  of 
Zeus,  makes  him  advance  toward  the  altar.  Sterope,  his  wife, 
further  back,  is  thought  of  as  likewise  advancing,  ready  to 
hand  her  husband  the  saucer  for  the  sacrifice.  When 
Oinomaos  has  finished,  Pelops  and  Hippodameia  will  step  up 
to  the  altar  and  perform  their  sacrifice. 

The  five  stiff  and  lifeless  center  figures  have  thus  been  con- 
verted into  persons  engaged  in  a  most  vital  action.  By  plac- 
ing the  women  back  of  the  men,  Wernicke  has  broken  the 
monotony  of  the  lines  and  has  added  variety.  The  double 
row  of  figures  finds  its  parallel  in  Furtwangler's  new  arrange- 
ment of  the  Aigina  marbles,  doubling  1  them  up,  as  it  were,  to 

1  Not  exactly  one  behind  the  other,  but  all  slantingly,  and  some 
nearer  to,  others  further  away  from  the  front. 


92 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


admit  more  figures  in  the  given  space  of  the  pediment.  The 
other  changes  of  Wernicke's  reconstructions  are  of  little  im- 
portance, except  his  interpretation  of  the  old  man,  behind 
the  chariot  of  Oinomaos,  in  Text  Illustration  22.  He  explains 
him  as  the  charioteer  of  Pelops,  and  says  he  held  the  reins 
in  his  right  hand.  His  objection  to  having  the  reins  of  the 
horses  held  by  a  groom  squatting  in  front  of  the  chariot  seems 
to  be  well  taken,  in  view  of  the  accurate  observation  of  nature 
that  characterizes  the  Olympia  sculptures.  Nobody  can  stop 
horses  when  holding  their  reins  in  a  sitting  position  under 
their  heads.  It  may,  however,  be  remarked  that  if  the  idea 
of  the  necessity  of  stopping  the  horses  had  occurred  to  the 
artist,  he  would  not  have  put  the  reins  in  the  hand  of  an  old 
man,  a  hand,  moreover,  which  at  the  same  time  supports 
the  head.  Neither  objection,  however,  is  fatal ;  neither  inter- 
pretation conclusive.  Wernicke's  arrangement  has  the  advan- 
tage that  it  places  the  stooping  slave  girl  under  the  horses' 
heads  near  Hippodameia,  perhaps  to  fasten  the  sandal  of  her 
mistress,  making  of  the  two  a  group  similar  to  those  often  seen 
on  Athenian  grave  monuments.1 

All  the  other  important  points  are  discussed  in  full  in  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  i88ff.     They  have  reference  to  the  following  facts: 

THE  EAST  PEDIMENT. 

1.  The  evidence  as  to  the  date  of  the  temple,  not  later 
than  457  B.  C.,  nor  probably  earlier  than  470  B.  C. 

2.  The  subject  of  the  East  Pediment :  the  chariot  race  of 
Oinomaos  and  Pelops. 

3.  The  difficulty  of  arranging  the  figures  in  the  triangular 
space,  and  the  only  partial  success  of  the  sculptor. 

4.  The  attention  paid  to  the  balance  of  masses,  and  the 

1  See  Plate  371, 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD. 


93 


subsequent  addition  of  a  bronze  coat  of  mail  to  the  slighter 
Pelops.     The  holes  of  attachment  are  still  visible. 

5.  Age  differentiation  in  the  men,  character  expression  by 
means  of  pose  and  drapery  in  the  women. 

6.  Exquisite  observation  of  nature  in  the  case  of  the  old 
man. 

7.  Skill  of  representing  the  twist   in    Kladeos,  Plate  853, 
the  figure  in  the  right  hand  corner  (from  the  spectator's  point 
of  view).     Contrast  it  with   the   dying  warrior  from  Aigina, 
Plate  79. 

THE  WEST  PEDIMENT. 

1.  The    subject :    the  struggle   with   the   centaurs   at  the 
wedding  feast  of  Peirithoos,  king  of  the  Lapiths. 

2.  The  treatment  of  the  battle  scene,  everybody  having  his 
opponent,  in  strong  contrast  to  Aigina. 

3.  The  design,  suggestive,  by  means  of  its  lines  and  masses, 
of  a  fierce  struggle,  but  not  of  disorder. 

4.  Constant  resolution  of  groups  according  to  masses  into 
other  groups  according  to  thoughts  ;  the  three  center  figures, 
for  instance,  which  seem  to  belong  together,  really  form  parts 
of  several  groups,  etc. 

5.  The  necessity  of  following  Treu's  final  arrangement  of 
having  the  centaurs  canter  away  from  Apollo. 

6.  The  noble  conception  of  Apollo,  Plate  86,  in  the  center. 
The  change  in  his  drapery,  introduced   after  the  statue  was 
carved,  in  order  to  make  of  him  a  more  adequate  center  mass. 
The  treatment  of  his  hair,  and  of  his  ear,  suggestive  of  a  con- 
servative technique  not  yet  completely  freed  of  conventions. 

7.  The  touches  of  realism  in  the  composition  by  having  all 
the    men,    and   even   the   boy,    fight   aggressively,  while   the 
women  confine  themselves  to  the  defensive. 

8.  The   bestiality  of  the  heads  of  the  centaurs ;  the  calm 


94 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


nobility,  unruffled  even  by  the  fight,  of  the  Lapiths  and  of 
Theseus. 

9.  The  life  of  the  entire  composition,  due  to  the  action. 
The  figures  "  do  not  stand  or  move  as  any  .one  must  do  under 
similar  circumstances,  but  as  their  own  particular  feelings 
dictate." 

Pausanias  names  as  sculptors  of  the  pediments  Alkamenes 
and  Paionios.  But  dating  these  two  men  by  other  known 
works  of  theirs,  it  has  been  found  impossible1  to  assign  to 
them,  especially  to  Alkamenes,  the  Olympja  pediments. 
Lately,  however,  the  old  view  that  there  were  two  sculptors  of 
the  name  Alkamenes  has  been  gaining  ground.2  A  Hermes, 
Plate  112,  recently  discovered  in  Pergamon  and  inscribed  with 
the  name  of  Alkamenes,  seems  to  be  of  too  early  a  style,  being 
about  contemporary  with  the  Olympia  sculptures,  to  belong  to 
the  pupil  of  Pheidias,  so  that  the  Pausanias  information  may 
be  correct  after  all. 


PLATE  90.    Herakles  Bearing1  the  Burden  of  Atlas.    Discovered 

1876.     Museum,  Olympia.     Gardner,    p.    228.     For   the  head   of   the 
woman,  cf.y.  H.  S.,  V,  PI.  40,  head  in  Madrid. 

PLATE  91.  Herakles  Cleaning1  the  Stables  of  Augeias.  Discov- 
ered by  the  Germans,  1876.  Museum,  Olympia. 

PLATE  92a.  Herakles  and  the  Cretan  Bull.  Most  of  the  upper 
part  discovered  1829—30  by  the  French,  Louvre,  Paris;  the  rest  by  the 
Germans,  1880.  Museum,  Olympia.  For  all  the  metopes  see  Over- 
beck  I,  pp.  332ff. 


1  R.  Forster,  Reinisches  Museum  (new  series),  38,  p.  421.     See  also 
Gardner,  pp.  231,  232. 

2  For  Alkamenes  I  and  II,  see  J.  Six,  in  J.  H.  S.,  X,  pp.  iioff. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD. 


95 


TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  18.  Herakles  Offering  the  (now  lost) 
Stymphalian  Birds,  or  One  of  Them,  to  Athena.  The  seated  figure 
discovered  by  the  French,  1829-30,  Louvre,  Paris;  the  male  figure 
discovered  by  the  Germans,  1876.  Museum,  Olympia.  Michon,  Let 
Sculptures  (TOlympia  Conservee  au  Musee  du  Louvre  ;  Rev.  Arch., 
Vols.  26,  pp.  75-109,  and  27,  pp.  150-181. 

PLATE  92b.    Metope  of  the  Theseion,  Theseus  and  the  Bull.    Of 

marble.     In  its  original  place  on  the  temple  in  Athens.     Overbeck  I, 
pp.  457ff.  ;  fig. 


The  metope  '  sculptures  of  the  temple  of  Zeus,  unlike  those 
of  the  Parthenon,  were  not  attached  to  the  outside  of  the 
colonnade,  but  to  the  temple  proper,  that  is  to  say,  inside  the 
colonnade  in  a  position  comparable  to  that  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze;  the  only  difference  being  that  the  Olympia  metopes 
did  not  continue  along  the  sides  of  the  temple  ;  they  were  con- 
fined to  the  two  ends. 

They  represent  the  labors  of  Herakles,  and  seem  to  have 
begun,  if  we  judge  by  the  chronological  order  generally  as- 
signed to  these  labors,  on  the  back  side  of  the  temple,  that  is 
to  say,  the  west.  This  was  the  first  side  the  visitor  noticed, 
and  may  thus  have  received  more  attention  than  the  other, 
which  really  was  the  front.  This  view,  if  correct,  may  also 
account  for  the  fact  that  the  West  Pediment,  is  more  interest- 
ing than  the  East  Pediment.  The  better  sculptor,  contrary  to 
custom,  may  have  been  selected  for  the  most  noticeable,  and 
not  for  the  front,  gable  of  the  temple. 

The  labors  of  Herakles  represented  on  the  metopes  were  : 

On  the  West  side  : 

(i)  The  Nemeian  Lion;  (2)  The  Lernaian  Hydra;  (3) 
The  Stymphalian  Birds;  (4)  The  Kretan  Bull;  (5)  The 
Kerynetan  Doe  ;  (6)  the  Amazon. 

1  For  definition  of  metopes  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  212. 


96  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

On  the  East  side  : 

(i)  The  Eryraanthian  Boar ;  (2)  The  Horses  of  Diomedes  ; 
(3)  Geryon ;  (4)  Atlas  and  the  Apples  of  the  Hesperidai ; 
(5)  The  Stables  of  Augeias;  (6)  The  Kerberos. 

All  of  these,  except  the  last,  are  mentioned  by  Pausanias, 
VI,  10,  9. 

The  style  of  the  metopes,  although  in  general  keeping  with 
that  of  the  pedimental  sculptures,  is  more  careful.  Some  of 
the  notable  points  of  resemblance  are,  the  drapery  of  Athena, 
on  the  Stymphalian  Birds  metope,  which  corresponds  to  that 
of  the  girl  held  by  her  hair  in  the  left z  corner  of  the  West 
Pediment.  In  both  cases  the  folds  follow  the  lines  of  the  bent 
leg,  instead  of  falling  vertically  across  them  as  would  be  nat- 
ural. Secondly,  the  drapery  of  the  woman,  possibly  one  of 
the  Hesperidai,  Plate  90,  which  is  of  the  same  style  as  that  of 
Sterope,  Plate  84b,  and  not  fundamentally  different  from  that 
of  Hippodameia,Text  Illustration,  21.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  garment 2  of  Athena,  Plate  93.  Thirdly,  the  treatment  of 
the  hair  in  most  of  the  metopes,  a  smooth  mass  ready  to 
receive  the  paint,  is  like  that  of  several  of  the  pediment  figures. 
Finally,  the  body  of  Herakles,  Plate  923,  resembles  the  male 
bodies  in  the  center  of  the  East  Pediment ;  while  the  Herakles, 
Plate  90,  is  best  compared  with  the  second  figure  from  the  left 
hand  corner  of  the  same  pediment,  or  with  the  third  figure 
from  the  right  hand  corner  of  the  other  pediment. 

The  metopes  of  the  "  Theseion  "  represent  partly  the  same 
subjects  and  partly  similar  subjects  to  those  of  the  temple  of 
Zeus,  namely,  the  labors  of  Herakles  and  those  of  Theseus.3 


1  Left  from  the  spectator.  2  For  the  difference  in  these  garments, 
one  with  a  "kolpos,"  the  other  without,  see  the  "  Dancers"  from  Her- 
culaneum,  Plate  76.  3  See  below,  Plates  130!?. 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD. 


97 


There  is  considerable  uncertainty  as  to  the  date  of  the 
"  Theseion,"  which,  however,  seems  to  be  later  than  that  of 
the  temple  of  Zeus.  The  metopes  are  in  a  poor  state  of 
preservation,  but  the  comparison  of  the  one  representing  The- 
seus and  the  Bull  with  the  similar  one  from  Olympia  is  very 
instructive.  In  Olympia,  Plate  923,  the  titanic  power  of  the 
hero  is  matched  against  the  brute  force  of  the  beast.  The 
question  is,  "Who  is  the  stronger?"  On  Plate  p2b  the  man 
is  insignificant,  even  slight,  compared  with  the  bull,  whom  he 
will  conquer  by  a  wrestling  trick,  of  which  he  was  the  tradi- 
tional discoverer.  The  question  is,  "  What  is  more  efficient, 
brute  force  or  human  skill?" 

PLATE  93.  So-called  Mourning  Athena.  Of  marble.  Akropolis 
Museum,  Athens.  Discovered  on  the  Akropolis  in  1888.  The  upper 
left  hand  corner  of  the  slab  and  parts  of  the  left  fore  arm  are  restored. 
A.  Fairbanks,  A.J.  A.,  1902,  pp.  4ioff.,  compares  the  relief  with  the 
picture  on  a  vase  and  discusses  all  earlier  views.  See  also_Graef, 
Deltion,  1880,  pp.  io3ff. 


The  figures  of  women  of  the  Olympia  metopes  invite  a 
comparison  also  with  the  beautiful  little  relief  of  the  so-called 
"  Mourning  "  or  "  Thinking  Athena."  The  small  size  of  this 
relief,  intended  to  be  seen  close  at  hand,  may  account  for  the 
greater  elaboration  of  the  folds  of  the  drapery.  Athena,  how- 
ever, wears  the  same  garment  as  the  women  on  the  metopes,1 
although  she  has  arranged  it  differently.  She  has  turned  over 
a  bigger  apotygma  and  has  used  the  belt,  over  which  her  coun- 
terpart, Plate  91,  has  pulled  the"  kolpos,2  to  fasten  her  apo- 
tygma. The  part  that  is  turned  over  is  about  equal  to  that  on 
Plate  90,  only  that  there  it  is  ungirdled.  Her  hair,  as  far  as  it 

1  It  may  be  a  little  smaller.  2  For  kolpos  and  apotygma  see  Hercu- 
laneum  "  Dancers  "  Plate  76. 


98  GREEK  AMD  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

shows  below  the  helmet,  is  much  like  that  of  the  Hesperidai, 
while  the  nonchalant  gesture  of  her  right  hand,  resting  with 
outspread  fingers  on  her  hip,  carries  a  definite  reminder  of 
the  Oinomaos  '  in  the  East  Pediment.  The  inaccurate  draw- 
ing, or  rather  suggested  drawing,  of  her  legs  finds  parallels 
in  similarly  thoughtless  forms  among  the  pediment  figures. 
The  woman  carried  off  by  the  centaurs,  for  instance,  on 
Apollo's  right,  seems  to  have  only  one  leg,  and  the  twist  of 
her  sister  on  the  other  side  is  impossible. 

These  observations  place  the  Athena  relief  by  the  side  of 
the  Olympia  sculptures,  although  one  may  hesitate  to  assign 
it  to  the  same  school  on  account  of  her  differently  shaped, 
and  very  differently  conceived,  head.  The  helmet  worn  by 
this  Athena  is  the  loose-fitting  Korinthian  helmet,  which  is 
best  studied  in  the  Perikles  busts  and  in  the  grave  relief  now 
in  Copenhagen.2  It  is  a  helmet  that  in  battle  is  pulled  down 
over  the  face  (notice  the  openings  for  the  eyes  and  the  guard 
for  the  nose),  but  that  is  pushed  up  over  the  head  at  all  other 
times.  The  Olympian  Athena,  Plate  91,  wears  the  other, 
close-fitting  or  Athenian,  helmet. 

The  design  of  the  relief  is  worthy  of  careful  study.  The 
straight  lines  of  the  figure  are  in  keeping  with  the  traditional 
character  of  Athena,  while  the  forward  inclination  of  the  body 
is  expressive  of  a  thoughtful  mood.  This  inclination  had  to 
be  pronounced  in  order  to  counteract  the  rigidity  of  the  lines 
in  the  body  of  the  goddess.  It  would,  however,  have  appeared 
to  be  excessive,  if  it  had  not  been  overshadowed  by  the  still 
greater  forward  slant  of  the  spear.  By  comparison  with  the 
spear  the  body  appears  all  but  erect.  This  is  the  first  instance 
of  a  Greek  sculptor  making  use  of  what  might  be  called  "  the 

"Compare  also  J.  H.  S.,  XXII,  1902,  PI.  I,  stele  from  Athens  re- 
cently discovered,  and  p.  2,  fig.  I,  relief  of  Herakles  from  Mt.  Ithome. 
2  See  below,  Plates  406  and  356. 


TRANSITIONAL   PERIOD.  99 

principle  of  negative  suggestion,"  r  that  is,  suggesting  less  than 
is  actually  carved.  The  spear,  therefore,  becomes  a  necessity 
of  the  design.  Its  possibly  unpleasant  effect,  however,  as  be- 
ing one  side  of  a  very  acute  triangle,  is  counteracted  by  the 
stele  at  the  right.  This  stele,2  originally  painted,  may  have 
contained  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  relief. 

The  beauty  of  the  relief  is  not  measured  by  such  corre- 
spondences or  details  of  design  ;  it  is  inherent.  The  grace 
of  its  conception  speaks  in  terms  far  more  personal  than  are 
expressed  in  words.  We  do  not  know  what  Athena  is  doing  3 
and  we  do  not  care ;  for  we  enjoy  her  presence,  whatever  it  is 
that  has  brought  her  here. 


.     PLATE  94.    Relief  of  Three  Women  in  Transparent  Garments, j^ju^.  y, 

SO-called  "  Birth  Of  Aphrodite."     Of  Marble.     Museo  BoncampagnirT^     _6 

Ludovisi;  now  in  the  Museo  delle  Terme,  Rome.     Found  1887  in 

grounds  of  the  Villa  Ludovisi,  together  with  two  other  reliefs,  Text        ,*^ 

Illustrations  16  and  17,  one  of  a  woman  offering  incense,  the  other  of 

a  woman  playing  the  flute.     Excellent  illustrations,  Antike  Denkmdler 

II,  Pis.  6  and  7.     Helbig,  No.  892,  who  gives  a  full  bibliography. 

The  graceful  lines  of  these  figures  and  the  light  fall  of  their 
draperies,  suggestive  almost  of  flowing  water,  have  given  the 
relief  the  name  of  "  Birth  of  Aphrodite."  This  goddess 
rose,  according  to  tradition,  from  the  sea. 

The  first  formidable  objection  to  this  interpretation  consists 
in  the  fact  that  the  Greeks  of  the  Transitional  Period,  to 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  244  ff. ;  where  this  principle  is  discussed  in 
connection  with  the  "  Kephissos  "  of  the  Parthenon,  Plate  141.  2It 
is  by  no  means  impossible  to  assume  that  the  stele  is  an  addition 
of  the  copyist,  who  took  his  type  of  Athena  from  a  gem ;  for  if  this 
Athena  is  reproduced  in  an  oval  frame  the  need  for  a  stable  verticle 
line  disappears.  She  appears  as  if  designed  for  an  oval.  3  For  the 
several  suggestions  see  bibliography  Robinson  (supplement)  87.  One 
is  that  Athena  is  mourning  at  the  grave  of  a  warrior,  whose  stele  is 
seen  at  the  right. 


loo  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

which  the  relief  belongs,  were  not  in  the  habit  of  represent-***  • 
mS  tne  elements  by  means  of  suggestive  figures.     Helbig  is  -* 
right  when  he  says  that  if  the  sea  was  meant  we  should  ex- 
£  ™  '  pect  to  see  fishes  and  other  sea  creatures  portrayed  to  desig- 

nate  it.  But  even  granting  that  the  inspired  conception  of  an 
exceptional  artist  permitted  a  different  representation,  then  the 
sheet  from  behind  which  Aphrodite  is  rising  ought  at  least  to 
show  the  same  "  watery  "  folds  that  characterize  the  garments 
of  her  attendants.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  If  it  is 
possible,  therefore,  to  explain  these  folds  in  another  way, 
interpretation  of  the  relief  as  the  Birth  of  Aphrodite  cannot 
stand.  Studied  by  themselves,  the  draperies  of  neither  attend- 
ant  appear  to  be  "  watery."  The  girl  to  the  spectator's  right 
seems  to  be  dressed  in  two  garments.  The  lower  and  heavier 
is  close  fitting,  it  follows  the  lines  of  the  bent  leg,1  just  as  was 
the  case  with  some  Olympia  figures.  Over  this  close-fitting 
garment  the  girl  wears  another,  a  transparent  one,  falling  in 
vertical  masses.  It  is  the  difficulty  of  sketching  the  one  gar- 
ment  over  the  other  which  accounts  for  the  peculiar  effect. 
The  watery  appearance  is  accidental  and  not  intentional.  The 
central  figure,  wearing  only  the  transparent  chiton,  offered 
fewer  difficulties  to  the  sculptor. 

These  observations  reveal  the  insufficient  grounds  on  which 
the  relief  has  been  called  the  "  Birth  of  Aphrodite,"  although 
they  fail  to  substitute  another  interpretation.  No  interpreta- 
tion, in  fact,2  has  been  suggested  that  is  convincing.  These 
three  graceful  figures,  therefore,  remain  unnamed. 


It:  *S  t^16  "S*1*  le§  as  is  seen  from  the  foot.  The  faulty  drawing 
makes  it  appear  to  be  the  left.  2  Helbig's  suggestion  that  the  subject 
is  that  of  a  woman  awaiting  her  accouchement,  kneeling,  according  to 
an  ancient  custom,  may  be  correct.  If  so,  the  relief  is  a  good  example 
of  the  delicacy  with  which  Greek  sculptors  treated  subjects  that,  to  the 
ordinary  mind,  do  not  seem  to  lend  themselves  to  an  aesthetic  repre- 


>r     * 


TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD.  101 

The  design  of  the  group  is  thoughtful  and,  barring  the  com- 
bination of  the  arms  back  of  the  central  figure,  very  success- 
ful. Both  the  balance  and  the  harmony  of  the  composition, 
but  withal  its  studied  variety,  call  for  attention.  The  two 
attendants,  although  very  similar  in  appearance,  are  yet  differ- 
ent in  every  line  ;  and  the  seemingly  symmetrical  folds  of  the 
sheet  in  the  center  are,  nevertheless,  all  of  them,  carrying  the 
eye,  in  the  direction  of  the  gaze  of  the  figure  above.  The 
modelling  of  the  nude  is  good  and  expressive,  the  left  fore-arm 
of  the  figure  on  the  right  clearly  marking  her  readiness  to  drop 
the  cloth  and  to  reach  down.  This  is  a  great  achievement,  for 
it  means  the  conquest  of  the  inertia  of  the  material  in  which 
the  arm  is  wrought.  The  hair  of  the  center  figure  is  note- 
worthy, there  being  no  connection  between  the  hair  on  the 
crown  of  the  head  and  that  below  the  fillet.  This  is  a  con- 
vention characteristic  of  the  Transitional  and  the  Archaic 
periods  of  Greek  sculpture.  Here,  however,  it  is  followed 
with  so  much  delicate  skill  that  it  almost  escapes  notice. 
Only  few  heads  are  extant  of  which  the  same  can  be  said,  and 
most,  if  not  all,  of  these  bear  striking  resemblances  to  this 
relief.  One  is  pictured,  Athen.  Mitth.  VI,  1881,  Plate  VII,  I, 
and  another/.  H.  S.,  XIV,  1894,  Plate  V. 

This  latter  head  has  given  Eugenie  Sellers  the  opportunity 
of  discussing  the  relief  in  Rome  in  detail,  coming  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  must  be  assigned  to  Kalamis.1  She  may  be 
right,  but  with  the  data  at  our  command,  the  case  cannot  be 
proved,2  although  it  is  possible  to  say  that  the  style  of  this 
relief  agrees  more  accurately  with  the  reputed  style  of  Kalamis 
than  with  that  of  anyone  else. 

1  The  same  view  is  advanced,  Rom.  Mitth.  VII,  pp.  31-80. 

2  The  possibly  correct  attribution  of  this  relief  to  Kalamis  makes 
the  suggestion  mentioned  above,  that  the  "  Hestia"  is  by  him,  appear 
deservedly  ridiculous. 


102  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART  FOUR. 


Fifth   Century. 

The  name  of  Pheidias,  which  is  lastingly  and  firmly  con- 
nected with  the  Greek  Sculpture  of  the  fifth  century  before 
Christ,  has  led  many  people  to  believe  that  his  works  are  that 
sculpture.  Pheidias,  however,  was  only  one  of  many  artists 
who,  receiving  a  rich  inheritance,  added  to  it  from  the  pro- 
ceeds of  their  genius,  and  created  works  which  not  only 
pleased  their  fellow  men,  but  which  exerted  through  centuries, 
and  down  to  our  own  generation,  influences  of  supreme  no- 
bility. 

Pheidias,  too,  was  a  beginner  once,  and  his  early  works,  no 
doubt,  showed  signs  of  the  novice.  We  think  of  him,  how- 
ever, as  of  the  man  of  matured  ideas,  and  judge  him  by  his 
later  works,  the  more  so  as  it  has  proved  difficult  to  identify 
any  of  his  earlier  creations.  It  is  the  quality  of  his  master- 
pieces that  has  given  to  the  century  in  which  he  lived  the  now 
traditional  character.  For  this  reason  it  has  seemed  wise  to 
detach  the  first  thirty  years  after  the  Persian  wars,  and  to 
treat  of  their  sculpture  in  a  separate  period  as  works  of 
Transition.  The  word  of  suggestion  uttered  above,  not  to 
believe  that  every  work,  because  discussed  in  the  Transitional 
Period,  must  have  been  made  between  480  and  450  B.  C., 
but  rather  to  consider  the  affinity  of  spirit  which  classes  it 
with  indubitable  works  of  that  period,  holds  good  also  here 
All  that  is  meant  by  placing  a  statue  in  the  so-called  Fifth- 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


103 


Century  group  rather  than  in  the  Transitional  Period  is  that  it 
shows  less  of  traditional  conventions  and  more  of  the  genius 
of  the  artist.  In  the  case  of  a  few  statues  it  has  been  very 
difficult  to  decide  which  was  the  case.  They  have  been  in- 
cluded in  the  "fifth  century"  if  they  are  important  for  the 
understanding  of  a  later  type. 

Properly  speaking,  the  Fifth-Century  group  includes  the 
period  of  Transition.  No  name,  however,  having  been  as- 
signed to  the  years  after  450  B.  C.,  and  the  public  mind  hav- 
ing accepted  the  identification  of  freedom  of  conception  and 
of  great  skill  with  the  fifth  century,  it  has  seemed  wise  to 
separate  the  two  periods,  and  to  be  intelligible  rather  than 
logical. 

PLATE  95.    The  Lemnlan  Athena,  After  Pheidias.    Plaster  cast 

of  two  marble  statues  in  Dresden  and  a  marble  head  in  Bologna. 
Albertinum,  Dresden.  Over  six  feet  high.  Indentured  by  Furt- 
wangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  iff.  Objections  to  Furtwangler's  view  by 
P.  Jamot,  Monuments  Grecs,  Nos.  21,  22,  '93— '94 ;  Furtwangler's  re- 
ply, Class  Rev.,  June,  1895;  Jamot's  rejoinder,  Rev.  Arch.,  1895,  VoL 
27,  pp.  7-39;  Furtwangler's  final  remarks,  Rev.  Arch.,  1896.  Vol.  28, 
pp.  1-5,  Vol.  29,  p.  27,  with  pictures  of  gems;  Furtwangler  upheld  by 
Studniczka,  A.  J.  A.  (Review),  1900,  Vol.  IV,  p.  346;  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  2o8ff.,  332  ;  Gardner,1  pp.  265  and  note  facing  p.  167  ;  Robinson, 
109;  Reinach  II,  274,  7.  The  statue  is  to  be  restored  with  a  spear  in 
the  raised  left  hand  and  a  helmet  on  the  lowered  right  hand. 

The  identification  of  this  statue  as  a  copy  of  the  Lemnian 
Athena  by  Pheidias  is,  to  the  writer,  convincing.  None  of  the 
technical  objections  of  its  opponents  have  been  unanswerable. 

1  Professor  Gardner  informs  me  that  he  intends  to  recast  his  objec- 
tions to  Furtwangler's  identification.  He  does  not  accept  it,  basing 
his  reasons  now  on  the  style  of  the  statue,  which  he  believes  is  not 
Pheidian. 


I04  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  only  difficulty  is  in  replying  to  those  who  do  not  see  the 
style  of  Pheidias  in  the  statue.    The  style  of  Pheidias,  however, 
is  as  yet  something  so  elusive,  based,  or  not  based,  on  his  con- 
nection with  the  Parthenon  sculptures,1  that  it  becomes  impos- 
sible to  argue  the  question.     One  thing  is  sure,  if  the  original 
of  this  statue  was  not  by  Pheidias,  then  the  chain  of  circum- 
stantial evidence  which  Furtwangler  has  drawn  tightly  around 
his  identification,  must  be  explained  away.     This  cannot  be 
done   by  a  mere  profession  of  incredulity  in  respect  to  the 
style.     It  must  be  done  by  paring  off  argument  against  argu- 
ment.   This,  however,  no  one  has  even  attempted  to  do  during 
the  ten  or  twelve  years  that  the  new  combination  statue  has 
been   known.      In   view  of  these    facts,    it   behooves   us   no 
longer   cautiously   to  speak   of  the  "  supposed  copy  of  the 
Lemnia,"  but  to  accept  the  force  of  the  argument,  whatever 
pet  theories  it  may  scatter,  and  to  name  the  statue  —  as  at 
present  it  certainly  appears  to  be  —  the  Lemnian  Athena  after 
Pheidias. 

"  The  dignity  of  the  statue  is  self-evident.  It  is  a  somewhat 
austere,  though  kind,  conception  of  the  patron  goddess  of 
Athens,  and  appeals  to  the  imagination  even  more  than  to  the 
senses.  The  statue  was  doubtless  created  under  those  influ- 
ences which,  by  common  consent,  are  held  to  have  emanated 
from  Pheidias.  They  are  perfection  of  transmitted  forms,  and 
expression  of  a  profound  and  divinely  noble  character."  2 

The  second  of  these  qualities  can  only  be  felt.  It  cannot 
be  discussed.  The  first  is  capable  of  demonstration.  It  is 
best  understood  when  one  compares  the  statue  with  the 
Olympian  metopes,  Plates  goff.,  the  women  of  the  East  Pedi- 
ment of  Olympia,  Plate  87,  the  relief  of  Athena,  Plate  93,  the 

'See  E.  von  Mach,  p.  211.  2  Quoted  from  E.  von  Mach.  p.  209, 
where  a  fuller  appreciation  of  the  statue  is  given. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


I05 


Giustiniani  "  Hestia,"  Plate  75,  and  the  Copenhagen  torso, 
Plate  77.'  It  is  then  readily  seen  how  naturally  the  type  of 
the  Lemnian  Athena  evolved,  under  the  gifted  hands  of  a 
great  artist,  from  the  earlier  creations.  Especially  interesting 
is  a  comparison  of  the  Lemnia  and  of  the  figure  in  Copen- 
hagen. The  latter  marks  the  clinging  to  the  conventional  type 
and  the  mere  refinement  of  details,  the  former  shows  the 
power  of  divining  the  latent  possibilities  of  the  old  type  and 
of  embuing  them  with  new  life. 

The  pose  of  the  head  of  the  Lemnia  also  is  noteworthy. 
Following  the  direction  of  the  weight  of  the  body,  as  all  its 
predecessors  do,  it  is  yet  full  of  individuality.  In  this  respect 
it  compares  well  with  the  Apollo  from  the  Tiber,  Plate  10. 
The  drapery  of  the  statue  is  short,  leaving  the  feet  bare. 
Later,  in  the  Parthenos,  Plate  96,  greater  variety  in  the  bottom 
folds  is  procured  by  lengthening  the  garment.  This  was  de- 
sirable, in  view  of  the  unpleasant  appearance  of  those  folds  of 
the  shorter  garment  which,  for  variety's  sake,  did  not  run 
straight  down  to  the  edge. 

PLATES  96-100.  Copies  and  Adaptations  of  the  Athena  Parthe- 
nos (the  Virgin)  by  Pheidias.  For  the  most  complete  list  see  Abh. 
der  K.  Sac  As,  Gesellschaft  der  \Visscnschaften,  1883,  and  Th.  Schreiber, 
Athena  Parthenos;  also  Jh.  Oesterr.  Arch,  fnst.,  1901,  Vol.  IV,  pp. 
I44ff.,  or  the  Review,  A.  J.  A.,  1901,  Vol.  VI,  p.  463;  Arch.  Zeit.,  1883, 
pp.  i83ff.  For  the  dimensions,  A.  J.  A.,  Series  I,  Vol.  X,  i895,.pp. 
3358.  The  old  literature  is  cited  and  discussed  by  Michaelis  in  his 
standard  book  Der  Parthenon,  pp.  266ff.  See  also  A.  S.  Murray,  The 
Parthenon;  Charles  Waldstein,  Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias ;  and 

1  Additional  interesting  comparisons  are  made  between  the  statue 
and  the  statuette,  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  fig.  5,  p.  23;  Reinach  II, 
293>  5  ;  and  the  Athena,  Reinach  II,  800,  7,  a  statue  much  like  the 
Copenhagen  torso,  Plate  77,  but  for  a  change  of  legs  and  the  addition 
of  a  slanting  aigis. 


I06  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  loff.  For  further  literature  see  Over- 
beck  I,  p.  369,  notes  25ff.  Ancient  descriptions,  Overbeck,  S.  Q.,  645- 
690;  Stuart- Jones,  104,  105. 

PLATE  96.  Small  Statue  Of  Marble.  Madrid,  Hiibner,  No.  10; 
Michaelis,  Der  Parthenon,  p.  279,  A.  "  Very  faithful  "  (recht  getreu}, 

PLATE  97.  Varvakeion  Statuette.  Of  marble.  National  Museum, 
Athens.  Found  in  1880  near  the  Varvakeion,  the  northern  precinct  of 
Athens.  F.  W.,  467;  Robinson,  413;  Reinach  11,274,2.  Mechani- 
cally accurate,  but  otherwise  very  inferior. 

PLATE  98.  Lenormant  Statuette.1  Very  small.  Of  marble. 
National  Museum,  Athens.  Found  in  1859  west  of  the  Pnyx.  Unfin- 
ished except  the  face.  Truer  to  the  conception  of  the  original  than 
the  Varvakeion  statuette.  Michaelis,  p.  276,  i ;  F.  W.,  466;  Robinson, 
412;  Reinach  II,  274,  i. 

PLATE  99a.  Pergamon  Copy.  Of  marble.  Discovered  during 
the  German  excavations.  Museum,  Berlin.  Jahrbuch,  1890,  p.  95; 
Reinach  II,  293,  i.  A  late  adaptation. 

PLATE  99b.    Colossal  Statue  by  Antiochos 2  of  Athens.    Museo 

Boncampagni,  Ludovisi,  now  Museo  delle  Terme,  Rome.  Restora- 
tions :  both  arms,  parts  of  nose  and  lower  lip,  part  of  the  edge  of  the 
aigis,  the  projecting  part  of  the  snake-knot,  several  folds  of  the  drapery 
and  the  crest  of  the  helmet.  The  restorer  has  spoiled  the  statue  by 
retouching  several  places,  notably  the  edge  of  the  apotygma,  where  he 
has  smoothed  away  several  folds.  Helbig,  870;  Overbeck  II,  p.  452; 
Michaelis,  p.  279,  B. ;  Reinach  II,  279,  7.  One  of  the  most  faithful 
copies,  barring  the  restorations. 

PLATE  99c.  So-called  "  Minerve  au  Collier."  Colossal  statue  of 
marble.  Louvre,  Paris.  Restorations  :  both  arms  and  their  attributes, 

1  Another  statuette  is  the  bronze  Athena  in  Turin.     Found  in  1828 
in  the  bed  of  a  river.    Robinson,  414  ;  Reinach  I,  231,  2  and  3.    "  Full 
of  mannerism"  (sehr  maneriert) ;  Michaelis,  p.  279. 

2  The  first  two  letters  having  disappeared,  the  name,  as  Helbig  sug- 
gests, may  also  be  Metiochos. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


107 


the  nose  and  the  lips,  the  heads  of  the  sphinx  and  the  griffins  on  the 
helmet,  several  locks  and  parts  of  the  aigis.  Frohner,  Catalogue,  No. 
112;  Michaelis,  p.  278,  3;  Reinach  II,  162,  3.  Free  copy.1 

PLATE  100.  Shield  Of  Athena.  Of  marble.  British  Museum, 
London.  Found  in  Athens,  date  unknown,  acquired  for  the  British 
Muesum,  1863.  British  Museum  Catalogue,  No.  302;  Conze,  Arch. 
Zeit.,  Vol.  33,  pp.  33ff. ;  Robinson,  415  ;  Michaelis,  p.  283,  34.*  Sketchy 
and  a  suggestion  of  the  original  rather  than  of  a  copy  of  it. 

In  the  Varvakeion  statuette  scholars  have  come  to  see  the 
most  accurate  reproduction  of  the  shape  of  the  Athena  Parthe- 
nos  by  Pheidias.  The  statuette  is  little  more  than  three  feet 
high,  while  the  original  was  more  than  ten  times  this  height. 
It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  receive  any  impression  from  the 
statuette  comparable  to  that  made  by  the  gold  and  ivory 
Parthenos  in  Athens.  Some  of  the  other  copies  have  retained 
more  of  the  pleasing  dignity  of  the  goddess,  but  even  they  fall 
short  of  giving  an  adequate  impression.  The  work  of  Pheidias 
was  designed  for  the  semi-dark  of  the  sacred  interior,  it  was 
made  of  materials  of  great  intrinsic  value,  gold  and  ivory,  and 
was  doubtless  conceived  in  forms  capable  of  attracting  atten- 
tion in  spite  of  the  wealth  in  which  they  were  wrought.  Set- 
ting, material,  size  and  design,  all  combined  to  impress  the 
people,  and  of  all,  only  the  design  reduced  in  scale  and,  there- 
fore, distorted  is  left  to  us. 

We  have  in  consequence  no  right  to  judge  Pheidias  by  these 
copies.  What  now  impresses  us  as  stiffness  may  once  have 
appeared  to  be  noble  simplicity.  A  technical  device,  as  for 
instance  the  heavy  fold  falling  from  the  left  knee  to  the  ground 

1  For  a  new  list  of  heads  of  the  Athena  Parthenos,  see  L.  Pollak, 
Jh.Oesterr.Arch.  Institute  IV,  1901,  pp.  144-150. 

2  A  similar  fragment  is  in  the  Vatican,  Michaelis  p.  284,  35 ;  another 
in  the  Capitoline,  Schreiber,  Plate  III,  £3. 


I08  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

and  designed  to  serve  as  a  support,1  is  prominent  and  un- 
pleasant in  the  diminutive  copy.  It  was  not  noticed  among 
the  huge  masses  of  the  colossal  drapery  of  the  original. 

The  same  may  be  true  of  the  column 2  under  the  right  hand, 
if  it  really  formed  part  of  the  original  design.  Possibly  — 
although  it  has  been  tried  in  vain  to  get  a  concensus  of 
opinion  in  this  respect —  the  column  is  a  later  addition.  The 
apparent  accuracy  of  the  Varvakeion  statuette,  however,  makes 
it  unlikely  that  the  singular  support  of  the  hand,  which  occurs 
also  on  several  other  monuments,3  and  which  may  even  have 
been  mentioned  by  Plutarch,-*  is  an  invention  of  the  copyist. 
The  figure  of  Nike  was  six  feet  high,  so  that  the  arm  of 
Athena  needed  a  strong  support  to  carry  such  a  weight.  The 
question  is,  "  Could  an  interior  support  of  sufficient  strength 
be  devised  to  do  away  with  the  column?"  Those  who  have 
unbounded  faith  not  only  in  the  genius  but  also  in  the  inge- 
nuity of  Pheidias  feel  inclined  to  answer  "  yes."  They  may 
be  right,  and  in  that  case  suppose  that  the  column  was  added 
when  repairs  became  necessary,  soon  after  the  death  of 
Pheidias.  This  would  account  for  the  presence  of  the  column 
in  several  extant  monuments,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
absence  of  the  column  in  the  majority  of  reproductions  of  the 
Parthenos  type  cannot  be  used  as  a  valid  argument,  if  it  is  as- 
sumed that  their  several  makers  understood  the  column  to  be 

1  The  internal  mechanism  of  a  colossal  gold  and  ivory  statue  was 
very  complex.  The  weight  of  the  material  was  enormous.  The  statue 
consisted  inside  of  a  huge  skeleton,  with  many  beams  and  iron  bars 
crossing  and  re-crossing.  The  fold  from  the  left  knee  to  the  floor  may 
have  hidden  a  supporting  bar.  2  The  shape  of  the  column  is  un-Greek. 
3  See  Overbeck,  p.  369,11016  26,  and  p.  352.  4Overbeck,  p.  369,  note  30. 
Plutarch,  Life  of  Perikles,  chapter  13,  says  Pheidias  had  inscribed  his 
name  on  the  " stele,"  which  is  most  naturally  translated  "on  the  col- 
umn," although  other  translations  are  possible. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


109 


nought  but  a  support  which  they,  in  their  smaller  statues,  could 
afford  to  omit. 

With  the  knowledge  at  our  command  at  the  present  day,  it 
is  impossible  to  decide  the  question.  We  can  at  best  offer 
guesses  as  to  how  the  column  came  there.  Either  it  was  there 
originally,  or  it  was  introduced  when  repairs  became  necessary, 
or — and  this  possibility  has  perhaps  most  in  its  favor — it 
never  formed  part  of  the  gold  and  ivory  statue  from  which 
the  columnless  copies  are  derived,  but  was  resorted  to  by  a 
later  sculptor,  who  made  a  colossal  marble  copy  (now  lost) 
of  the  Parthenos,  which  statue  is  reproduced  in  the  column 
copies.  There  is  no  mention  in  literature  of  such  a  colossal 
marble  reproduction,  but  literature  is  generally  silent  as  to 
copies,  while  we  know  that  late  artists  at  times  delighted  in 
just  such  feats  as  the  task  of  copying  the  Parthenos  in  a  huge 
block  of  marble  would  have  offered. 

Compared  with  the  Lemnian  Athena,  Plate  95,  the  Parthe- 
nos, in  the  most  accurate  copies,  is  of  slender  build.  The 
Pergamon  Athena  in  Berlin  is  far  from  offering  a  thin  appear- 
ance. The  appearance,  however,  counts.  Multiplied  by  ten, 
the  width  across  the  shoulders  of  the  Varvakeion  statuette 
would  offer  powerful  dimensions.  It  would  then  be  judged 
by  itself,  and  not,  as  is  the  case  with  the  small  statues,  by  its 
relation  to  the  height  of  the  figure.  There  is  one  other  rea- 
son why  the  shoulders  of  the  Parthenos  could  not  be  very 
broad.  It  would  have  carried  the  left  hand,  and  consequently 
the  shield  and  the  snake,  unpleasantly  far  away  from  the  side 
of  her  body.  This  could  have  been  obviated  only  if  a  differ- 
ent angle  had  been  assigned  to  the  forearm.  Such  a  change, 
however,  would  have  spoiled  the  symmetry  of  the  design. 

All  this  shows  how  erroneous  it  is  to  formulate  a  canon  for 
the  art  of  Pheidias  from  the  analysis  of  the  extant  copies  of  the 
Parthenos,  to  call  this  his  style,  and  to  refuse  to  admit  to  his 


HO  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

circle  all  works  that  do  not  conform  to  it.  The  very  opposite 
is  the  right  course  to  take.  Pheidias  was  known  in  antiquity 
as  the  man  who  adapted  his  designs  to  the  places  and  to  the 
conditions  under  which  they  were  to  be  seen.1  None  of  his 
statues  of  ordinary  size,  therefore,  would  show  the  proportions 
of  his  colossal  temple  images,  so  that  the  proof  of  a  statue's 
not  being  by  Pheidias  may  be  found  in  its  conformity  to  the 
Parthenos  proportions  rather  than  in  its  deviations  from 
them.2 

This  ought  to  be  remembered  by  those  who  refuse  to  accept 
the  cogency  of  Furtwangler's  arguments  in  respect  to  the 
Lemnian  Athena,  Plate  95,  and  who  do  so  on  the  ground  that 
the  statue  does  not  seem  to  exhibit  the  style  of  Pheidias.  By 
"  style  "  they  mean,  not  the  conception,  but  the  mechanical  ex- 
ecution, the  distribution  of  masses,  the  general  finish  and  the 
proportions.  The  proportions  are  different,  and  must  be  so. 
But  with  this  one  exception,  there  is  a  singular  correspond- 
ence between  the  Lemnian  and  the  Parthenos  copies,  allow- 
ing the  latter  to  show  a  further  development  of  the  type  of 
the  former.  The  long  apotygma  belted  with  snakes,  the  low 
neck,  the  deep  folds  like  flutings  of  a  column,  relieved  by  the 
smoother  stretches  of  the  bent  left  leg,  afftl  even  the  fold  from 
the  left  knee  down,  which  has  become  a  supporting  necessity 
in  the  Parthenos,  are  found  in  the  Lemnian  Athena.3 

The  several  Parthenos  copies  collected  on  Plates  g6ff.,  offer 

1  See  story  quoted  from  antiquity,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  41,  42. 

2  The  same,  of  course,  is  true  of  the  figures  on  the  Parthenon  frieze 
and  on  the  metopes  and  in  the  pediments,  if  in  them  we  see  the  style 
of  Pheidias.     They  were  not  all  colossal,  to  be  sure,  but  they  were  to 
be  seen  at  a  height  of  about  fifty  feet  and  at  a  sharp  angle. 

3  This  fold  is,  of  course,  less  pronounced  in  the  Lemnia.     It  is,  how- 
ever, clearly  seen  in  a  profile  view  from  the  figure's  left  side.     No  such 
fold  appears,  for  instance,  in  the  torso  in  Copenhagen,  Plate  77. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  m 

the  best  opportunity  of  familiarizing  oneself  with  the  tech- 
nicalities of  the  style  of  Pheidias  as  manifested  in  this  one 
statue.  As  such  they  are  invaluable.  As  a  guide  to  the  gran- 
deur of  the  Pheidian  conception,  they  are  useless,1  except  for 
those  who  have  the  power  of  divinition. 

The  subjects  portrayed  on  the  shield  were  the  fight  of  the* 
gods  and  the  giants  on  the  inside,2  and  a  battle  with  the  Ama- 
zons on  the  outside.  The  shield  of  the  Varvakeion  statuette 
is  not  decorated.  The  Lenormant  shield  3  has  a  few  dimin- 
utive figures,  which  occur  also,  together  with  others,  on  the 
fragment  in  London  in  the  same  bold  and  characteristic  poses. 
The  lack  of  unity  in  the  London  composition  is  probably  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  artist  found  it  impossible,  owing  to  the  re- 
duced size  of  his  shield,  to  reproduce  all  the  figures  of  the 
original. 

The  greatest  interest  attaches  to  the  two  figures  immediately 
under  the  Gorgon,  —  the  old  man  swinging  his  double  axe, 
and  his  neighbor  hiding  the  greater  part  of  his  face,  with  his 
right  arm  extended  to  fetch  a  blow.  According  to  tradition,4 
the  old  man  is  Pheidias  and  the  other  Perikles. 

PLATE  101.  Athena  MediCl.  Of  marble  (said  to  be  from  Car- 
rara.) Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts,  Paris.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  un- 
known, formerly  in  the  Villa  Medici,  Rome.  Sent  to  Paris  between 
1834  and  1841.  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  27ff. ;  Furtwangler,  In- 
termezzi, pp.  I5ff. ;  F.  W.,  476;  Robinson,  450;  Reinach  I,  238,  2. 

1  Much  better  for  this  purpose  is,  for  instance,  the  gem  in  Vienna, 
containing  the  head  of  Athena,  signed  by  Aspasios,  Text  Illustration  12. 
For  a  head  which  has  preserved  its  color,  see  Plate  459  and  Antike 
Denkmdler  II,  Plates  31-34.  2Overbeck  recognizes  a  copy  of  this 
scene  in  a  vase  painting  in  Berlin,  Gerhard,  Trinkschalen,  Pis.  10  and 
n.  3  Picture,  Michaelis,  PI.  15,  16.  The  very  small  size  of  the  shield 
made  the  reproduction  of  many  figures  impossible.  4  Overbeck,  S.  Q., 
630,  668-671. 


112  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  vicissitudes  that  have  marked  the  career  of  this  statue 
until  they  have  obliterated  all  traces  of  its  history  have  shed 
their  confusing  light  even  over  the  discussions  by  various 
learned  men.  From  the  place  near  Pheidias  which  Wolters 
gives  it,  Robinson  concludes  "  that  it  might  even  have  been 
supposed  to  be  a  copy  of  this  statue  of  the  Parthenos,"  '  while 
Furtwangler  at  one  time  dragged  it  to  the  center  of  the  East 
Pediment  of  the  Parthenon  and  then  back  again.  Now  all 
these  theories  have  run  their  course  unaccepted,  except  that 
of  Wolters,  which  still  has  many  supporters,  although  the 
Carrara  marble  of  which  the  statue  seems  to  be  made  speaks 
against  it ;  for  this  marble  was  first  quarried  in  Roman  imperial 
times.  If  the  style  were  really  and  unmistakably  Pheidian, 
the  assumption  of  the  Medici  Athena  being  an  unusually 
faithful  and  spirited  copy,  might  obviate  this  difficulty.  This 
assumption,  however,  grants  the  late  copyist  a  power  not  only 
of  skill  but  also  of  perception  so  delicate  that  it  'becomes 
impossible  to  deny  him  an  equal  power  of  conception,  and 
that  is  fatal  to  the  unqualified  attribution  of  the  statue  to  the 
age  of  Pheidias. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  the  observer  is  a  wealth  of  dra- 
pery motives  and  a  nonchalant  disposition  of  the  legs.  Placing 
himself  in  the  attitude  of  the  Lemnia,  Plate  95,  he  readily 
appreciates  the  further  development  of  the  Parthenos,  both 
poses  naturally  devolving  from  the  erect  position  of  the 
"  Apollos,"  Plates  nff.,  which,  in  all  fifth-century  works,  seems 
to  be  the  starting-point.  Not  so  in  the  Athena  Medici.  She 
presupposes  several  changes.  No  simple  sideway  posture  of 
the  right  leg  accounts  for  the  fall  of  her  drapery.  Several 

1  This  could  have  been  supposed  only  by  those  who  are  unfamiliar 
with  ancient  literature  and  with  the  description  of  the  Parthenos 
there  contained. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  H3 

steps  must  have  been  taken,  and  the  leg  must  have  moved  for- 
ward actively,  before  the  heavy  garment  could  have  been 
pushed  over  to  one  side  so  much  as  to  discover  the  right  leg 
completely.  She  is  not  a  standing  figure  like  the  Lemnia  or  the 
Parthenos,  in  the  sense  that  she  has  long  stood  thus,  and  always 
will  stand  in  this  attitude.  She  is  a  standing  figure  because 
she  has  just  stopped  walking.  Theirs  is  a  position  slightly 
more  varied  than  that  which  may  have  preceded ;  hers  is 
an  attitude  less  lively  than  was  revealed  by  her  forms  before 
she  stood  still.  This  implies  ease  of  conception  as  regards 
moving  figures,  and  such  ease  is  not  found  in  any  indubitably 
Pheidian  statue. 

The  contrast  of  the  lower  and  of  the  upper  garment  as  a 
conscious  motive  of  beauty  is  also  not  known  in  the  age  of 
Pheidias,1  so  that  the  dignity  of  the  figure,  and  the  stability 
of  the  folds  of  the  heavy  chiton  on  the  left  side,  and  the  long 
apotygma  alone  remain  as  possible  arguments.  The  folds, 
however,  on  closer  observation,  are  very  different  from  those 
of  the  Parthenos.  They  are  soft  and  not  harsh,  they  are 
varied  with  an  eye  more  to  the  beauty  of  the  design  than  to 
their  natural  fall.  This  is  clearly  seen  in  the  part  of  the  gar- 
ment which  falls  over  the  girdle,  more  especially  immediately 
over  the  center. 

Under  these  conditions  it  becomes  impossible  to  look  upon 
this  statue  as  belonging  to  the  immediate  age  of  Pheidias. 
It  rather  shows  the  latent  possibilities  of  the  Pheidian  crea- 
tions, divined  by  a  later  admirer,  and  embued  by  him  with 
new  life,  just  as  Pheidias  had  taken  hold  of  the  best  he  saw 


1  Furtwangler's  contention  that  the  two  garments  do  occur  in  the 
fifth  century  is  true  only  in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  their  co-existence  in  a 
few  statues.  Nowhere  are  they  contrasted  for  the  sake  of  the  beauty 
of  such  a  contrast. 


114 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


in  the  works  of  his  predecessors,  and  made  of  it  the  founda- 
tion of  his  own  designs. 

The  exact  date  of  the  Athena  Medici  is  indeterminable. 
We  know  as  yet  too  little  of  the  period  of  Roman  art  to  which 
the  Carrara  marble  most  naturally  would  assign  her,  to  attri- 
bute her  to  it  with  confidence.  The  appearance  of  the  statue 
speaks  in  favor  of  its  being  an  original  rather  than  a  copy. 

PLATE  102a.  Athena  Farnese.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples. 
Gerhard  and  Panofka :  Neapefs  Antike  Bildwerke,  p.  41,  No.  118; 
Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  73ff. ;  Reinach  I,  226,  5  and  6. 

PLATE  102b.  Hope  Athena.  Found  in  1797  at  Ostia.  Now  at 
Deepdene.  Restorations  :  Both  arms,  the  Nike,  the  spear,  a  part  of 
the  chiton  and  part  of  the  snakes  on  the  aigis,  part  of  the  toes  on 
the  right  foot,  and  the  Gorgon's  nose  and  chin.  Michaelis,  Anc.  Mar- 
bles, p.  290,  No.  39;  Furtwangler,  Afasterpieces,  pp.  73rf. :  Reinach  I, 
227,  3- 

PLATE  102C.  Athena.  Of  marble.  Villa  Albani,  Rome.  Found, 
date  unknown,  in  Hadrian's  villa  on  the  Tiber.  Restorations :  nose, 
lips,  back  of  the  head,  the  nude  parts  of  both  arms,  front  of  left  foot 
and  several  minor  parts,  including  the  muzzle  of  the  dog's  skin.  Hel- 
big,  781  ;  Furtwangler,  pp.  /8ff. ;  F.  W.,  524;  Reinach  I,  236,  6. 

These  three  statues,  of  considerable  resemblance  to  each 
other,  and  yet  of  one  noteworthy  difference  in  the  case  of  the 
Albani  Athena,  show  a  different  motive  of  drapery  from  the 
one  discussed  in  its  several  varieties  in  the  preceding  statues. 
The  artist  has  returned  to  the  cloak  worn  over  the  undergar- 
ments by  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  25 ff.  Most  of  these 
early  figures  had  the  mantle  fastened  on  their  left  shoulder, 
and  so  it  is  here  with  two  out  of  the  three  Athenas.  Fashion, 
however,  has  changed.  The  small  cloak  has  given  way  to  the 
heavy  mantle,  which,  like  an  unevenly  doubled  shawl,  is  thrown 
over  the  shoulder.  This  new  garment,  when  very  large 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  115 

reaching  almost  to  the  feet,  has  the  peculiar  effect  of  making 
the  figure  appear  short,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Albani  copy. 
By  showing  more  of  the  chiton  below  it,  the  artists  of  the  other 
two  statues  have  broken  the  extent  of  the  straight  front  view, 
and  have  thus  added  to  the  appearance  of  height  of  their 
figures ;  while  at  the  same  time  they  have,  by  the  lighter  and 
more  numerous  folds  of  the  undergarment,  begun  to  relieve  the 
monotony  of  the  Albani  statue.  No  conscious  desire,  how- 
ever, is  noticeable  of  enlarging  upon  this  motive,  as  is  the  case 
with  the  Athena  Medici,  Plate  101.  Divested  of  their  peculiar 
draperies,  these  figures  at  once  fall  in  line  with  the  poses  of 
the  Lemnia  and  of  the  Parthenos,  Plates  95  and  96fF.,  of 
which  they  mark  a  further  development.  This  is  most  notice- 
able in  the  Athena  Farnese,  Plate  iO2a,  which  may  almost  be 
said  to  stand  ready  to  walk.  From  her  to  the  Doryphoros, 
Plate  113,  is  but  one  small  step. 

The  Athena  Albani  used  to  be  called  "  Athena  with  the  Lion 
Helmet,"  under  the  misconception  that  the  dog-skin  cap ' 
was  a  lion's  head.  The  cap,  however,  is  more  probably  the 
"  cap  of  Hades,"  indicating  the  connection  of  this  Athena  with 
the  powers  of  the  lower  world,  as  was  the  case,  for  instance, 
with  an  Athena  worshiped  in  Koroneia.2  The  head  is  remark- 
ably well  preserved  and  of  great  beauty.  Winckelmann 
thought  this  statue  revealed  one  of  the  grandest  conceptions 
of  antiquity. 

Furtwangler  ventures  to  assign  the  Hope  Athena  to 
Pheidias,  although  he  confesses  never  to  have  seen  the  origi- 


1  See  Helbig,  No.  781.  2Overbeck,  6".  Q.,  830  ;  Pausanias  IX,  34,  I ; 
Strabo,  IX,  p.  411.  The  Athena  of  Koroneia  was  of  bronze  and  was 
the  work  of  Agorakritos,  a  pupil  of  Pheidias.  The  grounds  on  which 
Furtwangler,  p.  81,  assigns  the  Albani  Athena  to  Praxias  are  so  slight 
that  they  disprove  rather  than  prove  his  case. 


n6  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

nal,  while  he  attributes  the  Farnese  Athena  to  a  pupil  of 
Pheidias.  His  only  admissible  arguments,  which  —  unsup- 
ported however  —  are  really  no  arguments,  are  that  the  type 
of  these  figures  might  be  by  Pheidias,  that  Pheidias  would  not 
have  repeated  himself,  and  that  therefore  one  of  the  statues 
must  have  been  made  by  one  of  his  pupils. 

PLATE   103.    Draped  Figure  of  a  Woman,  "Aphrodite."    Of 

marble.  Berlin.  Bought  in  Italy.  Restorations  :  the  tortoise  under 
the  foot.  Kekule,  Eine  Gewandstatue ;  also  Arch.  Anzeiger,  1893,  p. 
74;  Collignon  II,  pp.  131  ;  Reinach  II,  338,  6. 

Kekule  has  correctly  recognized  not  only  the  fifth  century 
style  of  this  figure,  but  also  that  it  is  an  original.  Its  "nobility 
and  breadth  of  proportions  "  and  its  drapery  bear  strong  resem- 
blance to  one  of  the  "  Three  Fates  "  of  the  Parthenon,  Plate 
136,  while  the  raised  foot  is  a  motive  not  infrequent  on  the 
Parthenon  frieze.  In  lines  and  masses  the  figure  appears  to 
be  a  ready  evolution  of  types  like  the  Copenhagen  figure, 
Plate  77  ;  and,  what  is  very  interesting,  it  is  the  prototype  of 
figures  like  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos,  Plates  29 if. 

The  name  "  Aphrodite  "  for  this  statue  seems  to  be  correct.1 
Its  attribution  to  Agorakritos,  the  pupil  of  Pheidias,  is  a  guess 
which  has  not  enough  in  its  favor  to  make  it  a  probability. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  25.    Apollo,  so-called  «« Barberini  Muse." 

Of  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich.  Of  colossal  proportions.  Discov- 
ered 1678  in  Tusculum.  Later  in  the  Palazzo  Barberini  in  Rome, 
since  1815  in  Munich.  Restorations:  the  right  arm,  entire  left  lower 
arm,  small  parts  of  the  lyre  and  of  the  garment,  the  tip  of  the  nose. 
Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  21 1  ;  Reinach  I,  254,  2. 


'See  the  collection  of  similar  statues,  Reinach  II,  338. 


25.       APOLLO,    "  BARBERINI    MUSE." 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  uj 

PLATE  104.    "Hera"  or  "Demeter,"   "Ceres".    Of  marble. 

Vatican,  Rome.  Of  colossal  proportions.  Date  and  place  of  dis- 
covery unknown.  It  is  believed  to  be  one  of  the  colossal  statues 
erected  near  the  theatre  of  Pompey,  because  it  was  first  heard  of  in  the 
court  of  the  Cancelleria,  not  far  from  the  site  of  that  theatre.  Restora- 
tions: both  arms,  the  right  foot,  four  toes  of  the  left  foot,  practically 
the  entire  nose  and  both  lips,  also  parts  of  the  chin  and  the  lobes  of  the 
ears,  several  pieces  of  the  drapery.  Helbig,  297  ;  Reinach  I,  206, 1. 

One  glance  suffices  to  convince  one  that  these  two  statues 
follow  the  same  type.  They  are  of  colossal  dimensions  and 
carry  cloaks  hanging  down  their  backs  —  a  new  fashion  — 
offering  a  pleasing  variety  to  the  artists.  The  peculiar,  long 
drawn  out  fold  near  the  left  foot  is  identical  in  both  statues. 
The  folds,  however,  along  the  right  legs  are  different,  those  of 
the  one  adapted  to  a  standing  position,  those  of  the  other  to  a 
slowly  advancing  attitude.  The  long  apotygma  of  Apollo  cor- 
responds to  that  of  the  Parthenos,  Plate  96.  The  apotygma 
of  "  Hera  "  is  shortened,  a  device  by  means  of  which  the  artist 
has  added  to  the  appearance  of  the  broad  upper  development 
of  the  goddess.  It  is  this  fullness  that  has  given  to  the  statue 
the  name  of  "  Hera,"  *  the  matron,  the  mother  of  the  gods. 

Apollo  used  to  be  interpreted  as  a  muse,  owing  to  his 
long  garment.  This  was  before  we  had  learned  that  men 
at  religious  festivals  and  at  other  solemn  occasions  wore 
long  gowns.  Such  a  long  garment  is  seen,  for  instance,  in 
the  Charioteer  of  Delphi,  Plate  60,  and  in  the  Apollo  of 
the  Vatican.2  Under  the  wrong  impression  that  this  figure 
was  a  woman,  the  restorer  has  added  a  wrong  right  arm. 
The  arms  of  men,  when  they  hang  down  at  the  sides,  are 

1  For  the  interpretation  of  this  figure  as  Nemesis  after  Agorakritos, 
see  the  bibliography  in  Helbig,  No.  297. 

2  Robinson,  507;  Reinach  I,  255,6, 


u8  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

straight,  with  the  inner  elbow  joint  turned  to  the  side  of 
the  body ;  those  of  women  commonly  show  a  deviation 
from  the  straight  line,  and  turn  the  joint  to  the  front,  as  is 
the  case  here.  The  modern  arm  is  very  disturbing  ;  it  sug- 
gests a  rhythm  which  the  lines  of  the  body  do  not  carry 
out.  It  strikes  a  wrong  key.  The  eyes  of  the  figure  are 
inlaid,  as  was  often  the  case  in  antiquity.  Now,  when  the 
figure  has  lost  all  traces  of  its  original  coloring,1  they  stare 
at  one  with  uncanny  glamor.  The  workmanship  also  is 
hard,  but  the  statue  nevertheless  has  preserved  much  of 
the  dignity  of  the  original. 

PLATE  105.    Hera,  "Barberini  Juno."    Of  marble.    Vatican, 

Rome.  Colossal  statue.  Found,  date  unknown,  on  the  Virinal  in 
Rome.  Restorations :  right  arm,  left  fore  arm,  nose,  and  several 
pieces  in  the  drapery.  Helbig,  301  ;  Reinach  I,  198,  i. 

PLATE  106.  Hera,  "  Borghese  Juno."  Of  marble.  Glyptothek 
Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen.  Colossal  statue.  Found,  date  unknown, 
in  a  villa  on  Monte  Calvi,  together  with  two  statues  of  Anakreon  and 
several  statues  of  Muses.  Formerly  in  Villa  Borghese.  Restorations: 
both  arms  and  several  pieces  of  the  drapery,  most  especially  the  end 
of  the  mantle  below  the  waist.  Glyptothek  Catalogue,  No.  224  ; 
Reinach  II,  239,  8. 

With  these  two  statues  we  take  one  more  step  away  from 
the  calm  simplicity  of  the  Lemnian  Athena,  Plate  95.  But 
so  rapid  was  the  development  of  Greek  art  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  say  how  far  in  time  the  statues  are  removed 
from  Pheidias.  Some  scholars  say  one  hundred  years,  and 
assign  them  to  Praxiteles.2  Others  say  not  more  than  a 

1  For  the  coloring  of  statues  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  67ff. 

2H.  J.  Massi,  Compendious  description  of  the  Museums  of  Ancient 
Sculpture  in  the  Vatican,  p.  25,  No.  546.  The  modelling  on  the  left 
upper  arm  and  on  the  folds  near  the  feet  is  by  no  means  fine  enough 
to  make  the  attribution  to  Praxiteles  possible. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


119 


decade,  and  name  as  their  sculptor,  Alkamenes,  the  friend 
and  pupil  of  Pheidias.1  These  latter  possibly  are  right. 
The  clinging  drapery,  fallen  from  one  shoulder  and  ar- 
rested by  the  breast,  finds  its  prototype  in  the  "  Fates  "  of 
the  Parthenon,  Plate  136.  The  pose  is  the  natural  suc- 
cessor of  that  of  the  Athena  Albani,  Plate  io2c,  while  the 
severe  and  impersonal  nobility  fits  the  character  of  the 
fifth  century  better  than  that  of  any  other  age.  The 
motive  of  the  himation  (cloak,  or  shawl)  is  new,  but  its 
folds  around  the  knees,  and  on  the  right  leg,  suggest  those 
of  the  statues  on  Plate  102. 

There  are  considerable  differences  in  details  between 
these  two  2  Hera  statues,  aside  from  the  wrongly  restored 
corner  of  the  garment  in  the  Copenhagen  figure.  The 
Hera  Borghese  shows  a  more  pronounced  tilt,  and  wears  a 
simple  band  (opisthosphendone)  on  her  head  instead  of  the 
broad  Stephanos  of  the  Barberini  Hera.  Her  chiton  is  more 
clinging,  revealing  more  clearly  the  forms  which  it  is 
intended  to  hide,  and  is  arranged  with  more  artificial  exact- 
ness. It  also  leaves  more  of  the  neck  uncovered,  and  is, 
therefore,  probably  a  less  accurate  copy  of  the  original. 

The  very  prominent  breasts  of  the  statues,  the  certain 
something  in  the  draperies  of  both  that  seems  to  call  for 
attention  rather  than  to  permit  the  figures  to  be  satisfied 
with  simply  being  as  they  are,  adds  a  disturbing  element 
to  the  generally  noble  conception  of  Hera.  This  is  doubt- 
less due  to  the  copyists  who  could  not  approach  the  signifi- 
cant motive  without  impressing  on  it  ideas  of  their  own 


1  Klein,  Praxiteles,  p.  6$ff.  ;  Arndt  in  his  index  to  the  Brunn-Arndt 
collection  of  plates.  2  Another  inferior  copy  is  in  the  Vatican,  restored 
asDemeter;  Helbig,  34. 


120  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

less  dignified  age.  The  beautiful  unconcern  of  the  "  Fates," 
Plate  136,  similarly  draped,  is  sadly  missing  in  these  two 
statues  of  Hera. 

PLATE  105T.  Athena  Of  Velletri.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Colossal  statue.  Found  in  1797,  near  Velletri  in  the  ruins  of  a  Roman 
villa.  Restorations :  parts  of  the  feet,  both  hands  and  parts  of  the 
lower  left  arm.  The  rest  of  the  arm  has  been  put  together  of  ancient 
fragments,  but  was  probably  originally  bent  more  in  the  elbow.  Traces 
of  violet  color,  once  doubtless  red,  were  found  on  one  eye  and  on  the 
lips.  Frohner  Catalogue,  No.  114;  F.  W.,  1434;  Reinach  I,  162,  6. 

In  this  Athena  we  meet  the  short  Doric  chiton  of  the 
Lemnia,  Plate  95,  the  delicate  adjustment  of  heavy  folds 
of  the  torso  Medici,  Plate  101,  and  the  freedom  of  pose 
and  the  arrangement  of  the  cloak  of  the  Hera  Barberini 
type,  Plates  105  and  106.  The  aigis  has  dwindled  down 
to  the  appearance  of  an  amulette  of  no  integral  connec- 
tion with  the  figure.  The  extended  left  hand  held  a  Nike, 
as  Athenian  coins  reproducing  this  type  show  ;  the  right 
hand  rested  on  a  spear. 

No  attributes  are  needed  to  convince  one  that  this  slen- 
der maiden  is  the  virgin  goddess,  in  strong  contrast  to  the 
mature  deity  represented  in  the  Hera  Barberini.  The 
shape  of  the  head,  long  and  rather  thin,  as  befits  the  god- 
dess of  thoughtful  wisdom,  stands  in  decided  contrast  to 
the  round  face  of  the  Parthenos,  Plate  96,  while  it  bears  a 
strong  resemblance  to  the  busts  of  Perikles,  Plate  406.  On 
this  account  the  Velletri  Athena  has  been  attributed  to 
Kresilas,1  who  is  said  to  have  made  the  image  of  Perikles. 


1  See  the  convincing  argument,  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  p.  I4iff. 


26.       HERA    OF    VIENNA.  2f.       "  SAUROKTONOS,"    VILLA    ALBANI. 


28.       NIKE  FROM  COLUMN  OF  TRAJAN.  29.       NIKE  FROM  ATHENA-NIKE  TEMPLE. 


FIFTH   CENTURY.  I2i 

PLATE  108.    Aphrodite,  so-called  Venus  Genetrix.    Of  marble. 

Louvre,  Paris.  Discovered  about  1650  in  Frejus  (Forum  Julium). 
Formerly  in  the  gardens  of  the  Tuilleries,  then  in  Versailles,  now  in  the 
Louvre.  Restorations  :  both  hands  and  the  objects  they  hold.  The 
head  and  the  visible  part  of  the  right  foot  were  broken,  but  are  an- 
tique. Frohner,  p.  116,  no.  135;  F.  W.,  1208;  Robinson,  545;  As- 
signed to  Praxiteles  by  Brizio,  Bulletino,  1872,  p.  104,  to  Alkamenes  by 
Furtwangler,  Roscher's  Lexikon  dcr  Mythologie  I,  p.  413,  to  Arkesilaos 
by  Gardner,  p.  506.  Other  literature,  Overbeck  I,  p.  386,  notes  uS-; 
Reinach  I,  172,  3  and  4. 

This  statue  received  its  name  from  the  legend  "Veneri 
Genetrici  "  on  a  coin  r  of  the  empress  Sabina,  representing 
a  similar  statue.  A  Grasco-Roman  artist,  Arkesilaos,  is 
known  2  to  have  made  a  statue  for  the  temple  of  Venus 
Genetrix  in  Rome,  and  it  is  on  these  grounds  that  the 
statue  first  was  assigned  to  him.  But  as  early  as  in  1869 
Frohner  pointed  out  that  the  statue  represented  a  much 
earlier  type  than  was  seen  on  -the  coin.  This  view  is  to- 
day almost  universally  accepted  and,  although  there  is  no 
consensus  of  opinion  as  to  the  exact  date  of  the  statue,  few 
side  with  Gardner,  who  still  places  it  in  the  Graeco-Roman 
period.  Furtwangler's  view  that  it  might  be  a  copy  of  the 
"Aphrodite  in  the  Gardens,"  by  Alkamenes,*  a  pupil  of 
Pheidias,  has  gained  ground  of  late,  especially  in  view  of 
the  large  number  of  extant  replicas, *  which  indicate  that 
the  original  was  a  statue  of  world  renown.  And  this,  the 
Aphrodite  of  Alkamenes,  was  beyond  all  other  draped 
statues  of  that  goddess. 

1  See  cut  of  the  coin  in  Frohner,  p.  167.  2  Overbeck,  S.  Q.,  2268; 
Pliny,  IV.  Jf.,  35,  155.  3  For  another  statue  assigned  to  Alkamenes 
see  Antike  Denkmaler  II,  PI.  22;  Arch.  Attz.,  1894,  pp.  46ff.  For  his 
newly  discovered  Hermes  see  Plate  112.  4For  one  other  see  Reinach 
II,  378,  4  and  6. 


122  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Compared  with  the  other  draped  figures  of  women  ac- 
cepted in  the  realm  of  the  fifth  century,  there  is  nothing  to 
hinder  the  attribution  of  this  Aphrodite  to  a  prominent 
artist  of  this  period.  We  must  not  look  for  exact  parallels, 
granting  a  certain  amount  of  inventive  power  to  the  artist. 
The  pose,  however,  in  the  first  place  finds  its  parallel,  or  at 
least  its  prototype,  in  several  figures  (see  Plates  io2ff.).  The 
cloak  hanging  in  the  back  is  also  no  innovation,  nor  are 
the  gestures  of  the  arms,  except  that  the  right  arm  is  bent 
back  in  the  elbow.  The  drapery  fallen  from  the  shoulder 
is  found  on  the  Parthenon  "Fates,"  Plate  136,  and  on  the 
Hera  Barberini,  Plate  105,  which  latter  statue  also  offers  a 
parallel  for  the  clinging '  drapery,  while  the  long  fold 
drawn  back  by  the  instep  of  the  right  foot  is  an  echo  of 
the  similar  folds  on  the  Vatican  "Hera,"  Plate  104,  and 
on  the  Barberini  Apollo, Text  Illustration  25. 

The  appearance  of  the  statue,  dressed  only  in  the  thin 
chiton,  is  an  innovation,  which  is,  however,  in  keeping  with 
the  changes  in  the  conception  of  the  character  of  the  god- 
dess, which  had  begun  to  take  place  in  the  second  half 
of  the  fifth  century.  The  new  motive  is  treated  with 
great  moderation,  and  is  even,  compared  with  the  upper 
part  of  the  Hera  Barberini,  distinctly  chaste  and  modest. 
The  statue  itself  is  of  poor  workmanship.  The  modelling 
of  the  face  is  most  especially  inadequate.  But  even  with 
these  defects,  the  statue  is  charming.2 

PLATE  109.  Figure  of  a  Woman  Running.  Of  marble.  Glypto- 
thek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not 

1  The  drapery  clinging  to  the  legs  is  as  old  as  the  Branchidai  figures, 
Text  Illustration  4. 

2  For  the  estimate  of  the  ancients  of  the  Aphrodite  by  Alkamenes, 
see  Overbeck,  5".  Q.,  812-815  ;  especially  Lucian,  Imag,,  4  and  6. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


123 


published.  Restorations  :  end  of  nose  and  left  elbow.  Glyptothek 
Catalogue,  No.  257;  Arndt,  Plates  of  the  Glyptothek  38-40;  Furt- 
wangler,  Sitz.  Munch.  Akad.,  1899,  pp.  279ff.  (Review,  A.  J.  A.,  1901,  p. 
232)  says  the  figure  is  part  of  the  now  lost  pedimental  composition  of 
the  "  Theseion."  Reinach  II,  419,  2. 

This  figure  was  not  intended  to  be  seen  on  a  level. 
Raised  aloft,  perhaps  on  the  corner  of  a  temple  as  an 
akroterion,  it  required  unusual  proportions  in  order  to  ap- 
pear to  be  natural.  This  accounts  for  the  elongated  upper 
legs  and  other  parts,  which  are  unsatisfactory  on  close  in- 
spection. 

The  woman  seems  to  be  running  from  danger,  pulling 
her  garment  as  protection  above  her.1  The  scene  whence 
she  is  fleeing  fascinates  her  and  she  looks  back.  If  she 
was  an  akroterion  on  one  corner  of  the  temple,  the  dreaded 
action  from  which  she  cannot  turn  her  eyes  may  have  been 
represented  on  the  top  of  the  gable.  The  rapidity  of  her 
onward  movement  is  suggested  by  the  bulging  and  flutter- 
ing folds  of  her  garment.  Her  face,  which  is  not  unlike 
the  Sappho  head  in  the  Villa  Albani  (see  Plate  394a),  is 
singularly  calm  for  one  in  her  position.  It  reminds  one 
of  the  immovable  Olympic  features,  Plates  S^fi.,  and  is  in 
keeping  with  the  style  of  the  fifth  century  artists,  who  had 
not  yet  stooped  to  the  representation  of  fleeting  emotions. 

There  are  few  statues2  extant  with  which  to  compare 
the  Copenhagen  figure.  Two  statuettes3  of  Leto  fleeing 
with  her  children  in  her  arms  come  the  nearest  to  it. 
Collignon  (II,  p.  192)  describes  some  fragments  of  acro- 

1  The  same  motive  is  found  in  several  Niobids,  Plates  22off. 

2  Arndt  gives  a  statuette  in  the  text  to  his  plates,  38-40,  p.  16,  fig.  36. 

3  Reinach  II,  417,  6  and  7.     See  also  one  of  the  figures  of  the  frieze 
of  the  temple  in  Phigaleia,  Plate  I78f. 


124  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

teria  figures  found  in  Delos  near  the  temple  of  Leto,Jone  of 
which  was  Aurora  carrying  off  Kephalos  in  the  center, 
and  two  fleeing  nymphs  at  either  side.  The  Copenhagen 
figure,  therefore,  might  be  a  nymph  from  a  similar  scene. 
Arndt,  on  the  other  hand,  with  less  probability  identifies 
her  with  a  Hermione  by  Kalamis,  dedicated 2  in  Delphi. 
Nothing  is  known  of  the  way  Kalamis  represented  the 
Delphic  Hermione,  but  Arndt  assumes  it  was  at  the  mo- 
ment when  she  was  pursued  by  Orestes. 

Whatever  the  statue  represents,  it  gives  the  fifth  century 
conception  of  a  terrified  girl  fleeing  from  danger.*  The 
same  motive  supplied  the  sculptor  of  (probably)  the  fourth 
century  with  one  of  the  most  impressive  types  created  in 
ancient  times,  the  Niobid  Chiaramonti,  Plate  221. 

PLATE  110.  Nike  Of  PaioniOS.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Olympia. 
Discovered,  the  larger  part  of  the  statue,  at  the  very  beginning  of 
the  German  excavations  in  1875.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  26,  120,  263; 
F.  W.,  496,  497  ;  Robinson,  451  ;  Reinach  II,  379,  i.  For  a  picture 
of  the  statue  without  the  anaesthetic  addition  of  the  fragment  of  the 
head  see  E.  von  Mach,  PI.  V,  fig.  3.  For  a  Roman  copy  of  the  head 
see  Rom.  Mitth.  IX,  1894,  pp.  i62ff.,  PI.  VII. 

PLATE  111.    Restoration  of  the  Nike  of  Paionios. 


The  chief  defect  of  the  picture  of  the  excellent  restora- 
tion is  that  it  is  taken  almost  on  a  level  instead  of  from 
between  eighteen  arid  twenty  feet  below,  as  the  original 

1  The  probable  date  of  this  temple  is  425  B.  C.  2  Overbeck,  S.  Q. 
522  ;  Pausanias  X,  16,  4.  3  Some  people  see  in  the  "  Iris  "  of  the  Easi 
Pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  Plate  138,  a  similar  motive.  It  is.  how 
ever,  more  probable  that  the  figure  is  a  hurrying  messenger,  and  tha,< 
the  element  of  fear  has  had  no  place  in  her  conception. 


3O.       BIRTH    OF    ATHENA,    MADRID. 


31.       HERMES    BRINGING    DIONYSOS    TO    THE    NYMPHS. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


I2S 


was  seen.  The  same  defect,  although  not  to  the  same  ex- 
tent, attaches  to  all  pictures  of  the  preserved  torso  of  the 
statue.  Her  downward  flight  through  space  is  thus  ar- 
rested, and  one  of  her  greatest  charms  is  lost.  The  eagle 
at  Nike's  feet  formed  her  material  support.  It  was,  how- 
ever, only  partly  carved,  and  for  the  rest  painted,  shading 
off  probably  into  the  azure  of  a  blue  sky,  against  which 
the  goddess  seemed  to  be  relieved.  The  bulging  drapery 
in  the  back  and  the  heavy  wings  counterbalanced  the  for- 
ward inclination  of  the  figure  and  formed  another  substan- 
tial support,  which,  however,  did  not  appear  as  such,  owing 
to  the  beauty  of  the  modelling  which  transformed  the 
heavy  marble  into  the  soft  substance  of  a  woollen  mantle. 

One  stands  aghast  before  the  daring  of  Paionios,  who, 
with  seeming  ease,  has  proclaimed  himself  master  of  all 
the  difficulties  that  had  baffled  his  predecessors.  "Where 
has  he  learned  this  facility  that  turns  obstacles  to  good 
advantage  ? "  one  asks ;  and  there  is  but  one  answer, 
"  From  the  genius  mind  that  created  the  sculptures  of  the 
Parthenon."  In  daring,  however,  he  has  even  surpassed 
anything  that  was  created  in  Athens.  He  must  have  been 
a  good  mathematician  too,  in  order  to  compute  the  counter- 
weight which  his  inclined  figure  demanded,  and  to  adapt 
this  to  his  design  so  perfectly  that  even  the  close  observer 
often  fails  to  realize  the  magnitude  of  his  achievement. 
Mathematics,  however,  were  a  strong  point  of  the  Argive 
school,  so  that  we  may  not  go  wrong  when  we  acknowledge 
the  influence  also  of  this  school  over  Paionios. 

A  remarkably    skilful    device,1  which  is  not  seen  in  the 

1  Another  device,  the  full  bearing  of  which  is  seen  by  comparing  the 
original  with  the  restoration,  is  found  in  the  support  of  the  left  foot, 
attached  not  at  the  toes,  but  further  back,  so  that  the  toes  (now  broken) 
hid  it  from  view. 


J26  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

illustration,  consisted  in  changing  the  conventional  shape 
of  the  quadrangular  base  to  one  of  three  sides.  The 
ordinary  base,  of  which  the  spectator  generally  sees  more 
than  one  side  at  a  time,  would  have  offered,  at  the  height 
of  over  eighteen  feet,  such  a  cumbersome  mass  of  dead 
weight  that  the  aerial  flight  of  the  goddess  would  have 
appeared  to  be  retarded.  The  one  side  which  was  seen  of 
the  triangular  base  obviated  this  difficulty.  If  noticed  at 
all,  it  was  like  a  wall  over  which  Nike  was  sailing. 

The  garment  of  the  figure  reminds  one  of  the  "  Venus 
Genetrix,"  Plate  108.  It  is  lighter,  to  be  sure,  and  open 
on  one  side,  as  many  Greek  costumes  were.1  The  mantle 
in  the  back  finds  its  prototype  in  the  cloaks  on  the  backs 
of  the  figures  on  Plate  104  and  Text  Illustration  25,  while 
the  leg  protruding  from  the  garment,  which  indicates  rapid 
movement,  goes  back  to  the  Flying  Figure  from  Delos, 
Plate  32. 

PLATE   112.    Hermes   of  Alkamenes.     Of   marble.    Ottoman 

Museum,  Constantinople.  An  inscribed  herm,  excavated  in  Perga- 
mon,  November,  1903.  Announced  by  Dr.  Schrader,  Arch.  Anzcigcr, 
1904,  p.  76.  Discussed  by  G.  Loschke,  Jahrbuch,  1904,  pp.  22ft., 
and  by  Conze,  Sitzerungsberichtt  der  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften, 
1904,  Jan.  14,  pp.  69ft. 

The  importance  of  the  discovery  of  this  Hermes  cannot 
possibly  be  over-estimated.  It  is  a  later  copy,  to  be  sure, 
but  the  inscription2  removes  every  doubt  of  its  being  a  faithful 
reproduction  of  the  original  by  Alkamenes.  With  this  fact 

1  Compare  the  garment  of  the  Lemnia  and  of  the  Parthenos,  Plates 
95  and  96,  which  are,  however,  open  on  the  right  side. 

2  The  inscription  reads  :    "  You  will  recognize  that  this  is  the  beauti- 
ful work  of  Alkamenes,  Hermes  before  the  Gates.     Pergamios  erected 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  127 

accepted,  as  accepted  it  must  be,  we  are  confronted  with  a 
dilemma :  "  How  could  Alkamenes,  the  pupil  of  Pheidias,  the 
supposed  sculptor  of  the  Aphrodite,  Plate  108,  have  carved  a 
work  of  such  a  primitive  style  as  this  Hermes  ?  "  It  may  have 
been  a  work  of  his  youth,1  but  its  style  resembles  that  of  the 
Olympia  sculptures,  Plates  84ff.,  and  the  connection  of  Alka- 
menes with  those  sculptures,  scholars  have  felt  obliged  to  deny 
in  spite  of  the  explicit  testimony  of  Pausanias,2  because  the 
man  who  made  the  dedicatory  offering  for  Thrasyboulos  and 
his  followers  in  403  B.  C.,3  could  not  possibly  have  worked  on 
the  temple  of  Olympia.  It  now,  however,  seems  that  there 
were,  as  people  formerly  used  to  assume,  two  men  of  the 
name  of  Alkamenes.  The  work  of  Alkamenes  I,  we  may  see  in 
the  Pergamon  Hermes.*  It  may  be  he  who  once  was  a  rival  of 
Pheidias,5  and  who  made,  as  Pausanias  says,  the  West  Pedi- 
ment in  Olympia ;  while  the  pupil  of  Pheidias,6  who  worked  as 
late  as  403  B.  C.,  was  Alkamenes  II. 

It  is,  of  course,  too  early  to  make  definite  statements  in 
this  respect.  The  bearing,  however,  of  the  new  discovery  on 
the  solution  of  these  questions  is  of  far-reaching  interest. 

PLATE  113.  Spear  Bearer  (Doryphoros)  after  Polykleitos.  Na- 
tional Museum,  Naples.  Discovered  1797  in  the  Palaestra  in  Pompeii. 
Picture  of  Palaestra,  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  166.  There  are  practi- 
cally no  restorations.  The  statue  was  badly  broken,  but  has  been  put 
together  of  the  original  fragments.  It  has,  however,  been  "gone 
over"  by  the  man  who  joined  the  fragments.  Identified  as  a  copy 
after  Polykleitos  in  1863  by  Karl  Friederichs  in  a  monograph  entitled, 
Der  Doryphoros  des  Polyklet.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  249ff. ;  F.  W.,  505; 
Robinson,  100 ;  Reinach  I,  523,  cf.  II,  545,  10,  the  replica  in  the 
Vatican. 

1  Loschke  argues  convincingly  that  the  Hermes  of  Alkamenes  was 
erected  soon  after  450  B.  C.  2  Pausanias  V,  10,  8.  3  Pausanias  IX, 
11,6.  4  Poor  late  copies  of  the  same  Hermes  were  found  in  the  Sta- 
dion  in  Athens.  *  Pliny,  N.  //.,  34,  49.  6  Pliny,  N.  H.,  36,  16. 


I28  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  work  of  Polykleitos  is  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  248ff.  The  important  points  for  the  study  of  the 
Doryphoros  are  : 

1.  The  exaggeration  of  the  muscles,  due  to  the  translation 
of  the  original  bronze  into  marble. 

2.  The  pose,  striding,  the  head  following  the  direction  of 
the  weight  of  the  body. 

3.  Symmetry  of  design.     The  left  side  will  show  the  same 
curve  in  the  next  step  as  is  now  seen  on  the  right  side. 

4.  Exclusive  attention  paid  to  the  body,  no  thought  being 
given  to  the  feelings  of  the  person  portrayed. 

Another  interesting  fact  may  be  mentioned.  The  statue 
stood  not  on  a  pedestal,  but  on  the  ground,  "  a  man  among 
men." 

As  to  the  date  of  Polykleitos,  the  evidence  adduced  (E. 
von  Mach,  p.  336)  from  the  Oxyrrhynchos  papyros  that  Poly- 
kleitos was  active  as  early  as  the  fifth  decade  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury before  Christ  has  lost  in  strength  by  a  recent  discovery. 
The  papyros  gives  the  names  and  the  dates  of  Olympic  victors 
and  of  their  victories,  including  one  victor  of  the  fifth  decade, 
to  whom  Polykleitos  is  known  to  have  erected  a  statue.  These 
dates  have  generally  been  accepted  as  evidence  also  for  the 
dates  of  the  erection  of  the  statues  celebrating  the  athletic 
events  ;  the  discovery,  however,  of  the  Hagias  '  statue  in  Delphi 
shows  that  at  least  in  this  one  instance  the  monument  was 
made  more  than  fifty  years  after  the  victory  had  been  won. 

PLATE  1 14.  Diadoumenos  (Vaison)  after  Polykleitos.2  Of  mar- 
ble. British  Museum.  Found  in  Vaison  in  the  south  of  France  in 

1  Plate  234.  2  For  a  collection  of  Diadoumenos  replicas  see  E. 
Petersen,  Bull,  della  Comm.  Arch.  Comunale,  1890,  pp.  i85ff.  ;  for  an 
excellent  statuette  in  the  British  Museum,  A.  S.  Murray,/.  H.  S.t  1885, 
PI.  61  ;  for  a  list  of  heads,  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  24off. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


129 


1862,  acquired  by  the  British  Museum  in  1869.  Restorations:  the 
nose,  parts  of  the  right  hand,  most  of  the  left  hip,  and  other  minor 
parts.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  253ff. ;  F.  W.,  508;  Robinson,  102;  Reinach 
II.  547,  5- 

PLATE  115.    Diadoumenos  (Delos)  after  Polykleitos.    Of  marble. 

National  Museum,  Athens.  Found  on  the  island  of  Delos  in  1894  in 
the  ruins  of  a  house  of  the  second  century,  B.  C.  Louis  Couve,  B.  C. 
H.,  XIX,  1895,  pp.  46off. ;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  254ff. ;  Robinson  (Supple- 
ment), No.  iO3a;  Reinach  II,  547,  9. 

The  Vaison  statue  has  been  erected  with  a  slant  to  its 
ancient  plinth,  which  seemed  to  add  to  the  pleasing  appear- 
ance of  the  statue.  It  makes  the  pose,  however,  more  dis- 
tinctly a  striding  one,  and  since  a  stride  is  out  of  place  with 
the  motive — a  youth  tying  a  fillet  round  his  head — doubts 
have  been  expressed  as  to  the  wisdom  of  tilting  the  plinth. 
The  newly  discovered  Delos  figure  has  been  inserted  in  a  base 
on  a  level  with  its  plinth,  but  the  same  disturbing  stride 
appears  also  in  the  new  statue. 

The  important  points  for  the  study  of  these  statues,  which 
are  discussed  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2536^.,  are  : 

1.  The  pose  resembles  that  of  the  Doryphoros,  but  is  ill- 
adapted  to  the  changed  motive. 

2.  The    over-prominence   of  the    muscles  in  the   Vaison 
copy,  which  is  a  literal  translation  of  bronze  into  marble,  and 
the  rather  soft  and   almost  voluptuous  forms  of  the  Delos 
figure.     The  sculptor  of  this  statue  obviously  made  allowances 
for  the  change  of  material,  but   introduced   an  element  of 
fleshy  forms  out  of  keeping  with  the  art  of  Polykleitos. 

3.  The  contrast  between  the  molliter  juvenem,  as  Pliny  r 
calls  the  Diadoumenos,  and  the  viriliter  puerum,  as  he  called 
the  Doryphoros. 


I30 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PLATE  116a.  DIadOUmenos.  Of  marble.  Prado  Museum,  Madrid. 
Restorations:  the  legs  and  the  right  arm.  Michaelis,  Annali,  1878, 
p.  no;  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  p.  24off. ;  Reinach  I,  475,  6. 

PLATE  116b.  DiadOUmenos.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek  Ny  Carl- 
berg  (Copenhagen). 

PLATE  117.  DiadOUmenos  (Famese).  Of  marble.  British 
Museum.  Small  statue,  known  as  early  as  the  sixteenth  century. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown,  formerly  in  Palazzo  Farnese ; 
since  1864  in  the  British  Museum.  The  nose  is  restored.  F.  W.,  509; 
Robinson,  103  ;  Reinach  I,  524,  2  ;  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  i6ff. 

Of  these  three  statues  only  the  Madrid  Diadoumenos  re- 
produces the  work  of  Polykleitos.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  best 
copy,  barring  its  wrongly  restored  right  arm.  The  Copen- 
hagen statue  seems  to  reproduce  an  earlier  type,  while  the 
Diadoumenos  Farnese  has  never  yet  been  assigned  to  a  place 
that  seemed  universally  acceptable.  For  years  scholars  have 
noticed  that  this  little  figure  had  no  connection *  with  Poly- 
kleitos. Everything,  except  the  motive  of  tying  a  fillet  is 
different,  most  especially  the  pose.  The  freedom  of  the  left 
leg,  which  might  almost  move  in  a  circle  around  the  right 
leg  without  disturbing  the  rhythm  of  the  figure,  shows  such 
mastery  of  bodily  forms  moving  in  space  that  it  almost  ap- 
proaches •  the  work  of  Lysippos.2  It  is  entirely  unlike  the 
work  of  Polykleitos. 

The  statue  is  very  beautiful,  it  shows  the  hand  of  a  great 
master,  and  the  outlines  of  its  head  resemble  some  identified 
works.  On  these  grounds  the  statue  has  been  assigned  to 

"Robinson  alone,  as  late  as  1896,  wrote  "the  motives  of  the  two 
(meaning  the  Vaison  and  the  Farnese  statues)  are  so  similar  as  to 
leave  little  doubt  of  a  common  origin." 

2  See  Plate  235,  the  Apoxyomenos  after  Lysippos,  and  note  the  still 
greater  freedom  of  the  Apoxyomenos. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  I3I 

Pheidias.1  A  statue  by  him  of  a  youth  tying  his  fillet,  and 
called  "  Anadoumenos,"  is  mentioned  in  literature,2  which 
renders  the  attribution  even  more  probable.3 

PLATE  118.  Amazon.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Berlin.  Discovered 
in  Rome  in  1868,  acquired  for  Berlin  in  1869.  Restorations:  the 
entire  right  arm,  the  left  lower  arm  and  the  pillar  and  the  base,4  both 
hands  and  both  feet,  excepting  the  left  ankle.  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 
255ff. ;  Overbeck  I,  pp.  5i4ff. ;  Berlin  Catalogue  7  ;  F.  W.,  513  ;  Robin- 
son, 98 ;  Reinach  II,  324,  2.  For  a  replica  in  the  Vatican,  see 
Helbig,  32  ;  Gardner,  fig.  76. 

PLATE  119.  Amazon.5  Of  marble.  Lansdowne  House,  London. 
Michaelis,  Ancient  Marbles,  Lansdowne,  83;  Furtwangler,  Master- 
pieces, Plate  VIII;  Reinach  I,  503,  3. 

PLATE  120.  Amazon.  Of  marble.  Capitoline  Museum,  Rome. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published,  presented  to  the  Capitoline 
Museum  by  Benedict  XIV  (1740-1758).  Restorations  :  practically  the 
entire  right  arm,  the  left  fore  arm,  the  parts  of  the  drapery  drawn  away 
from  the  wounds,  several  toes,  end  of  the  nose  and  part  of  the  lower 
lip.  Helbig,  503,  who  on  p.  368,  gives  a  drawing  of  the  correct  restora- 
tion of  the  right  arm  as  holding  a  spear  on  which  the  figure  leans,  as 
is  seen  on  a  gem,  ib.  p.  367,  fig.  23.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  255ff. ;  Reinach  I, 
486,  3. 

PLATE  121.  Amazon  (Mattel  type).  Of  marble.  Vatican  Mu- 
seum, Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown ;  formerly  in  Villa 
Mattei,  acquired  for  the  Vatican  under  Clement  XIV  (1769-1774). 

1  The  identification  is  accepted  by  Arndt,  index  to  Brunn-Bruck- 
mann  collection  of  plates,  and  by  Zimmermann  in  Knackfuss-Zimmer- 
mann,  Vol.  I,  p.  152,  fig.  106.  2  Pausanias  VI,  4,  5;  Overbeck,  S.  Q., 
757.  3Cf.  the  figures  on  the  West  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon  (Plate  V, 
No.  9 Michaelis),  a  standing  youth,  which  in  many  respects  resembles 
the  Diadoumenos  Farnese.  4The  accuracy  of  this  restoration  is 
proved  by  the  Lansdowne  copy,  PI.  119,  in  which  the  pillar  is  antique, 
and  by  the  Sciarra  copy,  in  which  the  right  arm  is  antique.  SA 
good  profile  view  of  the  figure  in  Springer-MichaelisI,  p.  211,  fig.  376. 


'32 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Restorations :  the  head,  which  is  antique  but  does  not  belong  to  this 
type,  but  to  the  Capitoline  Amazon,  Plate  120;  the  neck;  both  arms; 
the  top  half  of  the  quiver ;  the  right  leg  from  the  knee  to  the  ankle  ; 
the  upper  half  of  the  tree-trunk ;  also  the  crest  of  the  helmet  on  the 
base.  Helbig,  195;  E.  von  Mach,  255ff. ;  Reinach  I,  483,  i.  The 
restorations  of  the  replica  of  this  statue  in  the  Capitoline  Museum 
are,  according  to  Helbig,  530,  the  neck,  the  right  arm,  the  left  upper 
arm,  the  index  finger,  middle  finger  and  end  of  thumb  of  the  left 
hand,  the  bow,  the  right  foot,  the  left  leg  from  the  middle  of  the 
thigh  to  below  the  knee,  tbe  toes  of  the  left  foot,  the  upper  part 
of  the  stump  with  the  points  of  the  pelta,  the  plinth  and  the  helmet. 
The  head  is  ancient,  but  does  not  belong  to  this  statue.  Robinson, 
97  ;  Reinach  II,  324,  I. 

The  important  references  to  these  statues  of  Amazons  are:  A. 
Michaelis,_/a//r£w^  I,  1886,  pp.  I4ff. ;  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp. 
I28ff. ;  Overbeck  I,  pp.  514*?.,  and  Notes  p.  527,  containing  classified 
bibliography;  also  B.  Graef,  Jahrbuch  XII,  1895,  PP-  8 iff.,  renouncing 
his  former,  vigorously  pressed  theory  of  identity  of  origin  of  the  Berlin 
Amazon  and  the  Doryphoros,  and  establishing  a  new  identity  between 
the  Capitoline  type  and  the  Diadoumenos. 

The  attribution  of  these  several  Amazon  statues  to  their 
respective  artists  has  been  often  attempted  and  as  often  been 
challenged.  Michaelis,1  and  formerly  Overbeck,  assigned  all 
of  them  to  Polykleitos,  and  this  view  has  been  followed  by 
the  writer.2  It  has  been  discarded  by  Furtwangler  and  by 
Overbeck  in  the  fourth  edition  of  his  Griechische  Plastik. 
These  men  believe  literally  in  the  tradition  ^  that  four  Amazon 
statues  were  made  for-  Ephesos  by  Pheidias,  Polykleitos, 

1  Jahrbuch  I,  1 886,  pp.  I4ff.     2  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  25Sff. 

3  Overbeck,  S.  Q.,  946;  Pliny,  N.  ff.,  34,  53.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  of  the  four  Amazon  statues  here  mentioned  by  Pliny  only  the 
Amazon  of  Pheidias  is  referred  to  by  another  author,  Lucian,  Imag.  4, 
while  the  only  other  statue  mentioned  twice  is  the  Amazon  by  Kresilas, 
the  name  of  which  Pliny  repeats,  N.  ff.,  34,  75. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'33 


Kresilas  and  Phradmon.  In  the  several  preserved  types  they 
see  copies  of  more  than  one  statue,  and  endeavor  to  assign 
them,  by  means  of  comparison  with  other  works,  to  this  or 
to  that  artist. 

Their  attributions  are  not  universally  accepted.  They  are 
fully  discussed  in  the  literature  quoted  above,  and  since  they 
neither  are  convincing  to  the  writer,  nor  have  proved  lastingly 
satisfactory  to  the  men  who  have  uttered  them  (for  these  men 
constantly  change  their  minds),  they  may  be  passed  by  here 
with  this  mere  reference.  Only  Overbeck  (I,  p.  515)  makes 
a  remark  which  is  of  far-reaching  importance,  if  true.  He 
says  that  the  support  of  the  Berlin  Amazon  on  a  pillar  in- 
troduces a  Praxitelean  motive,  which  he  firmly  believes  was 
impossible  in  the  fifth  century.  The  Praxitelean  motive,  to 
which  Overbeck  refers,  is  best  seen  in  the  "  Marble  Faun " 
Plate  19^,  and  in  the  "Apollo  Sauroktonos,"  Plate  185.  It 
consists  in  resting  almost  half  of  the  weight  of  the  body  on  an 
external  support,  which  support  is  so  integral  a  part  of  the  de- 
sign that  without  it  the  composition  cannot  exist.1  It  enables 
the  artist  to  introduce  a  rythm  of  ease  and  of  comfort,  unob- 
tainable as  long  as  the  figure  supports  the  weight  of  its  body 
on  its  own  two  legs. 

Glancing  from  the  Praxitelean  figures  to  the  Berlin  Amazon, 
one  sees  that  the  external  support  is  there,  but  that  the 
rhythm,  the  curve,  which  makes  of  it  the  "  Praxitelean  motive" 
is  absent.  On  the  other  hand,  one  perceives,  while  studying 
these  several  statues  together,  how  naturally  the  Praxitelean 
figures  were  evolved  from  statues  like  the  Doryphoros,  PI. 
113,  and  the  Berlin  Amazon.  The  latter  retains  the  stride  of 
the  Doryphoros,  but  combines  with  it  an  external  support. 
Praxiteles  sees  the  latent  possibility  of  such  a  support  and 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  27off. 


'34 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


creates  from  it  his  characteristic  motive.  But  his  genius 
compels  it  to  yield  to  him  unthought-of  beauties. 

For  a  further  discussion  of  the  Amazon  statues  see  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  2558".' 

PLATE  122a.    Statuette  of  an  Athlete  (Mercure  Aptere).    Of 

bronze.  Louvre,  Paris.  Longperier,  Notice  des  Bronzes  Antiques, 
214;  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  zygff. ;  Reinach  II,  588,  3. 

PLATE  I22b.    Small  Statue  of  an  Athlete,  so-called  "  West- 

macott  Athlete"  after  PolykleitOS.  Of  marble.  British  Museum, 
London.  Formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  sculptor,  Sir  Richard 
Westmacott.  The  left  hand  was  broken,  but  is  antique.  Petersen, 
Rom.  Mitth.  1893,  pp.  loiff. ;  and  Collignon  I,  p.  500,  who  believe 
the  statue  to  be  the  Kyniskos  after  Polykleitos  ;  Furtwangler,  Master- 
pieces, p.  250,  note  2,  expresses  well  founded  doubts ;  Robinson 
(supplement),  112;  Reinach  II,  546,  9. 

PLATE  122C.  Statuette  Of  a  Young  Satyr.  Of  bronze.  Biblio- 
theque  National,  Paris.  Babelon  et  Blanchet,  Catalogue  des  Bronzes 
Antiques  de  la  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  No.  428;  Collignon  I,  fig.  251 ; 
Reinach  II,  66,  2. 

PLATE    123.    Small  Statue  of  a  Boy,  «  L'Idolino."    Front  and 

back  view.  Of  bronze.  Museo  Archeologico,  Florence.  Found  in 
Pesaro,  near  Ancona  in  1530,  presented  to  the  duke,  in  whose  villa 
near  Pesaro  the  statue  remained  until  1633,  when  it  was  removed  to 
Florence  and  was  at  first  deposited  in  the  Gallery  of  the  Uffizi.  The 
right  arm  was  broken.  The  eyes  and  the  original  covering  of  the  lips 
(gold  or  silver)  are  missing.  The  name  "  L'Idolo  "  (the  idol)  occurs 
first  in  1779.  "L'Idolino"  means  the  "little  idol."  Amelung,  268, 
with  full  bibliography;  Robinson  (supplement),  113;  Reinach  II,  588,  2. 

'The  remarks,  E.  von  Mach,  p.  258,  have  reference  to  the  present 
restoration  of  the  Capitoline  Amazon.  They  are,  of  course,  out  of 
place  when  the  right  arm  of  the  statue,  according  to  the  gem,  is  restored 
to  lean  on  a  spear. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'35 


PLATE  124.  Small  torso  of  Boy,  called  "  Hermes."  Of  marble. 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston.  Place  and  date  of  discovery  and 
former  museum  not  published.  Acquired  for  Boston  in  1896.  Twenty- 
first  Annual  Report  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Museum,  pp.  19-21.* 
Reinach  II,  488,  3. 

These  five  statues  have  been  assigned  to  the  school  of 
Polykleitos  with  absolute  certainty  in  the  majority  of  cases. 
The  identification  of  some  of  them  with  definite  statues 
known  by  name  from  ancient  literature  has  proved  less 
successful. 

PLATE  125.  Ares  Borghese.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris.  Place 
and  date  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in  possession  of  the 
Borghese  family,  removed  to  Paris  in  1808.  Restorations:  the  left 
arm,  part  of  the  right  hand  and  several  toes.  F.  W.,  1298  ;  Robinson, 
104;  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  p.  89;  Reinach  I,  133,  1-3. 

Winckelmann's  designation  of  this  statue,  several  replicas 
of  which  are  known,  as  Ares  is  almost  universally  accepted 
to-day.  The  dedicatory  inscription  "  Marti "  on  one  of  the 
replicas,  and  the  ring2  around  the  ankle  of  the  Louvre  statue 
are  strong  arguments. 

The  resemblance  of  this  Ares  type  to  the  figures  by  Poly- 
kleitos, Plates  1138".,  has  long  been  noticed.  The  heads  of 
Ares  and  of  the  Doryphoros  are  rather  striking  in  mutual 
resemblance.  Not  only  in  general  appearance  are  they  alike, 

1  In  this  report  Mr.  Robinson  announces  his  intention  to  publish 
"a  more  detailed  description  and  discussion"  of  the  statue,  so   that 
courtesy  forbids  anticipating  him. 

2  This  ring  is   explained  as  showing  Ares  fettered  by  Hephaistos. 
There  was  a  hole  on  the  leg  above  the  ring  filled  with  lead,  where  the 
chain  may  have  been  attached.     Welters  (F.  W.,   1298)  gives   good 
reasons  why  the  ring  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  armor. 


136  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

but  also  in  such  details  as  the  locks  of  hair  near  the  ears  mark- 
ing the  delicate  beginnings  of  side  whiskers.  In  spite  of  this, 
Furtwangler  has  endeavored  to  identify  the  Louvre  statue 
with  Alkamenes. 

The  statue  is  especially  interesting  as  marking  a  further  step 
toward  freedom  of  pose.  The  evolution  of  the  male  figure  in 
Greek  sculpture  seems  to  follow  the  order  in  which  a  man 
standing  stiff  and  erect  first,  with  legs  close  together  and  arms 
hanging  at  his  sides,  would  move  one  limb  after  the  other  in 
the  endeavor  to  assume  a  freer,  a  more  comfortable  and  a 
more  beautiful  pose ;  until  at  last  all  possible  poses  having 
been  taken,  the  man  feels  no  longer  bound  to  assume  any 
one,  but  falls  at  will  and  with  ease  into  that  one  which  is  the 
most  natural  expression  of  his  character  or  of  his  momentary 
state  of  mind.  This  perfect  freedom  was  reached  by  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century.  Until  then  the  poses  are  limited  in 
number  and  not  always  truly  expressive.  This  makes  it  diffi- 
cult, when  attributes  fail,  to  identify  the  statues ;  for  corre- 
spondences between  the  characters  of  persons  protrayed  and 
their  poses  are  at  first  largely  accidental.  Nor  could  this  be 
otherwise  in  an  age  when  the  essence  of  character,  the  soul, 
was,  not  consciously  and  seriously  considered. 

PLATE  126a.  Athlete  Dropping  Oil  in  his  Hand.  Of  marble. 
Glyptothek,  Munich.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Bought 
for  Munich,  in  Rome,  in  1811.  Restorations:  The  right  arm  and 
shoulder,  the  left  forearm  and  the  left  hand.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue, 
302,  F.  W.,  462;  Robinson,  527  ;  Reinach  I,  522,  2.  For  the  head  of 
the  statue  see  Kekule,  Ueber  den  Kopf  des  Praxitelischcn  Hermes,  p.  8. 
For  a  list  of  replicas  see  Diitschke  IV,  p.  53,  82,  and  Furtwangler,  Mas- 
terpieces. 

Greek  athletes  anointed  themselves  with  oil  before  exercis- 


FIFTH   CENTURY. 


137 


ing.1  The  oil  was  kept  in  little  cruets,2  and,  as  this  statue  and 
several  fifth-century  vase  paintings  show,  was  poured  in  drops 
on  the  hand  with  which  it  was  afterwards  rubbed  into  the 
body.  Naturally  graceful  an  Athenian  youth  would  be  sure 
to  offer  a  pleasing  picture  to  the  spectator  as  he  raised  one 
hand  with  the  cruet  high  above  his  head  and  watched  intently 
the  other  hand  catching  the  drops  of  the  descending  oil.  The 
action  was  so  simple  and  the  attention  which  it  demanded, 
nevertheless,  so  close,  that  it  offered  a  charming  motive  for 
sculpture.  Its  simplicity,  no  doubt,  endeared  it  to  the  artist. 
As  the  style  of  the  figure  shows,  the  original  was  made  in  the 
fifth  century.  A  later  sculptor  would  probably  have  introduced 
more  variety  into  the  composition.  The  pose  would  have 
been  farther  removed  from  that  of  the  erect  standing  figure^ 
and  would  have  been  expressive  of  the  individual  rather  than 
of  the  type.  If  one  would  thoroughly  understand  the  dis- 
tinctly fifth  century  character  of  the  Munich  athlete,  one  has 
only  to  compare  him  with  the  Apoxyomenos  after  Lysippos, 
Plate  235. 

So  certain  is  the  fifth  century  origin  of  the  statue,  that  even 
the  resemblance  *  of  its  head  to  the  type  of  heads  found  on 
statues  by  Praxiteles  cannot  alter  one's  conviction.  This  re- 
semblance, far  from  pointing  s  to  a  Praxitelean  origin  of  the 
statue,  simply  shows  how  firmly  the  art  of  Praxiteles  was 
rooted  in  that  of  his  predecessors. 

PLATE  126b.  Standing  Discus  Thrower.  Of  marble.  Vatican. 
Found  in  1792  in  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  villa  on  the  Via  Appia  and 

1  For  a  statue  showing  the  removing  of  the  oil  see  Plate  235.  2  For 
such  a  cruet  tied  to  the  wrist  see  Plate  3490.  3  See,  for  instance,  the 
Apollo  of  Tenea,  Plate  14.  4  Pointed  out  by  Kekule,  p.  8.  s  Robin- 
son, p.  239,  lays  so  much  stress  on  this  resemblance  that  he  says  it 
"makes  the  date  of  its  original  a  matter  of  doubt." 


138  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE, 

bought  for  the  Vatican  by  Pius  VI  (1775-1799).  Restorations:  the 
fingers  of  the  right  hand,  the  nose,  fragments  of  the  lips,  and  other 
minor  parts.  G.  Habich,  Jahrbuch  XIII,  1898,  pp.  57ff. ;  A.  Michaelis, 
*3.,pp.  I74ff. ;  (Reviews),  A.J.  A.,  1900,  pp.  346;  E.  von  Mach,  A.J.A., 
1903,  pp.  45ft.,1  with  the  picture  of  a  vase  painting  resembling  the 
Vatican  statue.  These  articles  have  reference  to  the  identification  of 
the  statute  as  Hermes  or  as  a  Discus  Thrower,  also  to  the  mode  of 
throwing  the  discus  in  antiquity.  For  other  literature  see  Helbig,  331  ; 
F.  W.,  465;  Robinson,  107  ;  Reinach  I,  526,  8. 


This  statue,  like  the  Ares,  marks  a  further  deviation  from 
the  stereotyped  erect  posture  of  earlier  statues.  The  Discus 
Thrower  no  longer  stands  as  anyone,  engaged  as  he  is,  must 
stand,  but  as  he  himself  prefers  to  stand.  The  erect  pose,  in 
its  oneness,  may  be  said  to  be  the  typical  pose ;  the  stooping 
posture,  of  which  infinite  varieties  are  possible,  is  characteristic 
of  the  individual,  provided  it  is  consistently  carried  out.  This 
is  not  the  case  here.  The  stoop  of  this  athlete,  therefore,  is 
not  a  success.  It  arouses  our  interest  not  in  the  •  person  por- 
trayed, but  in  the  artist  who  dared  to  strike  out  along  a  new 
path. 

The  rhymth  of  the  statue  is  pleasing  only  from  one  point  of 
view  —  from  everywhere  else  it  is  almost  painful,  owing  to  its 
lack  of  unity,  of  balance,  and  of  harmony.  The  head  is  un- 
usually small,  almost  an  anticipation  of  the  small  heads  that  a 
century  later  Lysippos  carved.  It  is  noticeably  delicate,  and 
very  pleasant  to  look  at.  The  great  care  which  the  artist 
bestowed  on  it  makes  one  feel  that  he  really  endeavored,  ahead 
of  his  times,  to  bring  out  the  character  of  the  individual. 


1  This  article  was  written  immediately  upon  the  publication  of 
Habich's  article  in  1898,  but  was  not  published  until  five  years  later, 
owing  to  an  accumulation  of  past  material  in  the  office  of  the  Editor. 


32.       GIRLS    DECORATING    A    HERM. 


33.       ROMAN    IMITATION    OF    A    GROUP    ON    THE    ATHENA-NIKE    FRIEZE. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


139 


PLATE  12T.    "Apollo"  of  Eleusis  ("Sabouroff  Apollo").    Of 

bronze.  Museum,  Berlin.  Discovered  probably  in  the  sea,  near 
Eleusis,  date  unknown,  and  bought  soon  after  by  Count  Sabouroff, 
with  whose  entire  collection  it  was  bought  for  the  Berlin  Museum  in 
1884.  There  are  no  modern  restorations,  but  a  large  number  of 
ancient  "patches."  Berlin  Catalogue,  No.  i  ;  Robinson,  No.  533; 
Reinach  II,  593,  i. 

The  date  of  this  figure,  which  is  conceded  to  be  an  original, 
is  placed  by  the  official  catalogue  at  about  400  B.  C.  By  its 
grace  and  freedom  of  pose  it  partakes  of  the  special  charm  of 
the  fourth  century  works,  while  by  its  unsupported  and  fortui- 
tous attitude,  just  awakening,  as  it  were,  to  an  unfettered  com- 
mand of  body  and  limbs,  it  stands  firmly  rooted  in  the  art  of 
the  fifth  century.  The  wiriness  of  the  boyish  athlete,  amount- 
ing almost  to  meagreness  of  flesh  in  the  "  Idolino,"  Plate  123, 
has  given  way  to  rounded  contours.  These,  however,  are  by 
no  means  effeminate,  as  is  often  the  case  with  later  works. 
The  right  leg  is  more  firmly  planted  on  the  ground  than  the 
left,  but  it  is  not  so  straight-forwardly  a  supporting  member 
as  the  right  leg  in  the  Farnese  Diadoumenos,  Plate  117.  This 
gives  the  figure  an  easier  rhythm.  The  body  seems  to  sway 
to  an  unheard  tune,  and  there  appears  an  unemphasized 
curve,1  beautifully  repeated,  as  in  an  echo,  by  the  extended 
right  arm  and  balanced  by  the  graceful  left  arm.  This  mem- 
ber, which  forms  an  angle  with  the  inclined  body,  is  almost 
parallel  to  the  supporting  right  leg,  so  that  the  straighter  lines 
on  either  side  are  brought  into  prominence  and  in  this  way 
are  made  to  increase  the  stability  of  the  related  position.2 

The  head,  it  seems,  was  turned  to  the  right,  that  is,  following 
the  direction  of  the  weight  of  the  body. 

1  This  curve  is  very  different  from  the  curves  of  Praxitelean  works. 

2  The  substance  of  the  last  three  sentences  is  taken  from  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  statue  by  my  former  pupil,  Miss  Elsie  Langdon  Stern. 


I4o  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Compared  with  the  standing  Discus  Thrower,  Plate  126, 
the  Berlin  bronze  shows  a  less  wilful  deviation  from  the 
ordinary,  and  a  far  greater  power  of  perfecting  the  well-known. 
The  advance  of  the  best  Greek  art  is  invariably  along  these 
lines  and  is,  in  this  respect  also,  the  very  opposite  of  the  cus- 
toms of  modern  art. 

PLATE  128.  AsklepiOS  Or  Zeus.  Of  marble.  Albertinum, 
Dresden.  Found,  date  unknown,  in  Antium ;  formerly  in  the  Albani 
collection;  bought  in  1728  by  August  the  Strong  (1694-1733)  for  his 
collection  of  antiquities.  Restorations  :  the  left  arm  but  not  the  hand, 
the  right  forearm  and  attributes,  both  feet,  the  nose,  the  upper  lip,  the 
plinth  and  the  tree-trunk.  Hettner,  No.  59;  Robinson1;  Reinach  I, 


Nude,  for  the  Greeks  considered  nude  everyone  who  ap- 
peared without  his  chiton  (undergarment),  this  figure  is  sup- 
plied with  a  himation  only  for  reasons  of  design.  The 
arrangement  of  the  himation  reminds  one  of  that  of  the 
"Barberini  Hera,"  Plate  105,  where  the  corner  that  here  rests 
on  the  shoulder  has  begun  to  slip  down  over  the  arm.  The 
motive  of  the  end  of  the  garment  hanging  over  the  shoulder 
occurred  also  in  the  Zeus  of  Pheidias. 

The  pose  of  the  figure  is  perfectly  free,  as  appears  from  a 
comparison  of  it  with  the  "Zeus  "  in  Munich,  Plate  71.  The 
head  here  no  longer  follows  the  direction  of  the  weight  of  the 
body,  which  rests  on  the  left  leg.  But  this  is  perfectly  nat- 
ural, because  the  free  leg  is  no  longer  kept  behind  the  left 

1  Robinson  repeats  most  of  the  arguments  both  in  favor  and  against 
the  interpretation  of  this  figure  as  Zeus  or  as  Asklepios.  His  last 
argument,  however,  against  this  statue  representing  Zeus,  namely,  that 
the  statue  was  mild  in  appearance,  is  not  well  taken,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  Olympian  Zeus  of  Pheidias  is  praised  for  his  mildness 
(Dion.  Chrys.  XII,  14). 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  141 

leg,  but  is  placed  ahead  of  it.  The  pose  of  the  god,  therefore, 
is  not  the  immediate  result  of  having  walked  to  where  he  now 
stands  and  of  having  stopped  short  (cf.  Plate  71),  but  of 
having  moved  his  free  leg  after  he  had  reached  his  destination. 
The  head  quite  naturally  follows  the  direction  of  this  addi- 
tional movement,  but  since  the  weight  of  the  body,  still  sup- 
ported by  the  left  leg,  has  not  followed  the  leg,  the  movement 
seems  incomplete  and  adds  an  element  of  expectancy.  This 
new  idea  the  spectator  is  apt  to  translate  into  a  readiness  on 
the  part  of  the  god  to  listen,  perhaps  to  the  supplications  of 
his  people,  so  that  the  relationship  between  the  deity  and  the 
spectator  becomes  distinctly  personal. 

The  statue  unfortunately  is  a  copy  of  inferior  workmanship, 
but  even  the  lack  of  refinement  in  execution  has  been  unable 
to  deprive  it  of  its  inherent  graceful  dignity. 

PLATE  129.  The  Dioskoroi,  Kastor,  and  Polydeukes.  Of  mar- 
ble. Monte  Cavallo,  opposite  the  Quirinal,  Rome.  There  is  no  indi- 
cation that  these  statues  have  ever  been  invisible  since  they  were  first 
erected  in  Rome.  Their  first  mention  in  modern  literature  dates  from 
the  tenth  century  of  our  era.  Two  brief  inscriptions,  reading,  Opus 
Fidia,  and  Opus  Praxitelis,  seem  to  date  from  late  imperial  times. 
One  long  inscription  *  was  placed  on  the  monument  when  another 
older  one  was  removed  in  1589  by  Pope  Urban  VIII.  The  older  one 
said  the  figures  were  Alexander  and  his  horse  Boukephalos.  The  new 
one  left  the  subjects  unnamed,  stating  simply  that  the  colossal  statues, 
with  their  old  inscriptions  added,  had  been  removed  from  the  neighbor- 
ing Baths  of  Constantine  to  the  Quirinal.  In  the  replacing  of  the 
statues,  the  old  inscriptions  were  exchanged.  The  Opus  Fiditz  be- 
longs to  the  figure  with  the  left  arm  raised,  although  it  now  is  added  to 
the  other  man.  F.  W.,  1270,  1271  ;  Matz-Duhn,  959,  with  full  biblio- 
graphy; Furtwangler,  Masterpieces,  pp.  95ff.,  and  excellent  summary  of 
his  view  in  Denkmaler  Griechischer  und  Romischer  Skulptur  fur  den 
Schulgebrauch  ;  ffandausgabe,  pp.  251!.;  E.  Petersen,  A.J.  A.  (Review), 
1901,  Vol.  V,  p.  477  ;  Reinach  I,  485,  4  and  5. 

1  Quoted  in  full,  F.  W.,  1270,  1271. 


1 42  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Neglected  until  recently,  these  statues  have  suddenly  jumped 
into  prominence  by  Furtwangler's  defense  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  inscriptions.  He  does  not  overlook  the  obviously  poor 
workmanship,  but  he  accounts  for  it  by  assuming  that  it  is 
contemporaneous  with  the  inscrptions,  probably  of  the  time 
of  Constantine.1  The  greatest  objection  to  this  view  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  two  statues  are  apparently  of  equal  age, 
and  that  Praxiteles  lived  one  hundred  years  later  than  Pheidias. 
To  obviate  this,  Furtwangler  believes  in  an  older  Praxiteles, 
of  whom  we  know  nothing,  or  at  least  very  little.  In  view  of 
the  recent  discovery  of  the  Hermes  of  Alkamenes,  Plate  112, 
and  of  the  ensuing  probability  that  there  once  lived  also  an 
older  Alkamenes,  whose  existence  scholars  for  years  thought 
they  could  disprove  by  the  same  literary  evidence  that  seems 
to  speak  against  an  older  Praxiteles,  Furtwangler's  view  is  by 
no  means  untenable,  provided  the  style  of  the  figures  bears 
him  out  in  assigning  their  originals  to  the  fifth  century.  The 
question,  therefore,  is,  "  Could  a  fifth  century  Greek  sculptor 
have  designed  these  figures?"  The  answer  is  an  emphatic 
"yes."  We  have  not  watched  in  vain  the  development  of 
poses  in  this  period,  and  are,  therefore,  prepared  to  affirm 
that  men  who  in  fifty  years  could  make  advances  from  the 
style  of  the  Boy  found  on  the  Akropolis,  Plate  5  7,  to  the 
"Idolino,"  Plate  123,  or  even  to  the  Standing  Discus  Thrower, 
Plate  126,  or  finally  to  the  "Zeus"  in  Dresden,  Plate  128, 
could  so  far  enliven  and  adapt  the  Aristogeiton,  Plate  59,  as 
to  create  these  Dioskoroi.2  Further  the  writer  dares  not  go 

1  For  sculptures  of  this  time,  see  Plates  346ff. 

2  A  figure  very  similar  in  pose  to  the  Dioskoroi  occurs  on  the  East 
Frieze  of  the  Theseion,  Plates   131*?.,  immediately  behind  the  seated 
gods  on  the  southern  end  of  the  frieze.    Figures  in  relief,  however,  were 
carved  with  freedom  long  before  corresponding  figures  in  the  round. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  I43 

with  Furtwangler,  who  sees  correspondences  between  these 
figures  and  some  boys  in  the  Parthenon  sculpture. 

Those  who  believe  the  heads  are  too  small  in  proportion  to 
the  size  of  the  figures  to  make  them  possible  before  the  time 
of  Lysippos  (end  of  fourth  century  B.  C.)  need  only  be  re- 
minded of  the  very  small  head  of  the  Standing  Discus 
Thrower,  Plate  i26b,  to  see  that  their  objection  is  not  well 
taken. 

The  finish  of  these  figures,  complete  only  on  one  side,  on 
men  and  horses  alike,  has  led  to  the  correct  observation1 
that  these  groups  once  decorated  an  entrance  way,  "  so,"  says 
Fogelberg,  "  that  the  corners  of  the  entrance  way  fitted  in  the 
angle  between  man  and  horse.  In  front  of-the  building,  there- 
fore, one  saw  the  front  view  of  the  horses  and  the  men  beside 
them  in  high  relief  against  the  wall.  Entering,  one  passed 
the  long  profile  views  of  the  horses."  This  puts  the  Opus 
Fidice  on  the  left  side  as  one  approaches.  Both  men  are 
walking  away  from  the  doorway. 

A  slight  change  in  the  disposition  of  Fogelberg  may,  how- 
ever, be  suggested.  Suppose  the  doorway  projected  and  the 
horses  were  placed  with  their  sides  against  the  outside  walls, 
that  is,  the  Opus  Fidice  on  the  right.  Then  both  men  are  going 
toward  the  entrance,  which  seems  more  hospitable,  if  one  may 
say  so,  and  ensures  an  open  outdoor  light  for  both  men  and 
horses.  The  horses  are  intended,  as  their  size  indicates,  for 
a  distant  view.  This  they  receive  only  if  the  transposition 
from  Fogelberg's  arrangement  is  accepted.  The  inside  of  the 
doorway  may  have  been  decorated  with  reliefs  in  a  style  better 
adapted  to  the  near  view  in  an  interior. 

The  disposition  of  the  Dioskoroi  in  this  fashion  at  once 


'Fogelberg,  quoted  F.  W.,  1270,  1271,  p.  455. 


!44  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

calls  to  mind  the  Assyrian  man-headed  bulls  guarding  the 
entrances  of  important  buildings.  The  doorways  of  these 
buildings  projected.  On  the  narrow  ends  of  the  entrance 
walls  the  front  views  of  these  bulls  were  carved  with  the 
heads  of  men,  and  on  the  sides,  both  inside  and  outside,  the 
bodies  of  the  beasts  were  represented  in  relief.  Herodotos 
knew  this  Oriental  custom,  and  it  may  have  been  on  his  sug- 
gestion that  his  contemporary,  Pheidias,  designed  this  com- 
position. 

This  supposition  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  inscriptions 
correctly  designate  the  artists  of  these  groups.  As  long  as  the 
fifth  century  style  of  the  Dioskoroi  was  not  recognized,  one 
did  well  to  discredit  the  inscriptions.  Now  one  must  advance 
weightier  arguments  if  one  would  rightfully  disregard  them. 

For  a  full  appreciation  of  the  Dioskoroi  one  needs  the  gift 
of  imagination,  enabling  one  to  look  beyond  the  poverty  of 
execution  to  the  nobility  of  the  design.  Furtwangler  has  this 
gift  when  he  exclaims,  "  The  inspired  rythm  that  sways  these 
bodies  reaches  its  height  in  the  magnificent  heads.  The  hair 
of  the  youths  flutters  with  the  wind  and  surrounds  their  heads 
as  with  a  crown  of  divine  glory.  Their  godlike  eyes  snap  fire. 
These  are  indeed  the  heavenly  sons  of  Zeus,  the  Dioskoroi, 
who,  in  the  splendor  of  glittering  rays,  lustily  engage  in  the 
tussle  with  their  snowy  white  horses." 

PLATE  130.  The  "Theseion."  The  best  preserved  temple  in 
Athens.  The  most  complete  work  on  this  temple  is  the  recent  book 
by  Professor  Bruno  Sauer.  See  also  Gardner,  Ancient  Athens,  pp. 
4ioff. ;  for  the  lighting  of  the  temple,  W.  W.  Bates,  A.  J.  A.,  1901, 
pp.  37ff. ;  for  the  date,  earlier  than  the  Parthenon,  Julius,  Annali,  1878, 
pp.  205ff. ;  later  than  the  Parthenon,  Dorpfeld,  Ath.  Mitth.,  1884,  pp. 
336ff. ;  Furtwiingler's  answer,  Masterpieces,  p.  46,  note  I  ;  for  the  name 
and  date,  Furtwangler,  Sitz.  Munch.  Akad.,  1899,  pp.  279ff. ;  A.  J.  A. 
(Review),  V,  1901,  p.  232.  Furtwangler  says  it  is  the  temple  of  Apollo 
Patroos.  See  also  bibliography,  Overbeck  I,  p.  469. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


*45 


PLATES  131-133.    Slabs  of  the  Frieze  of  the  "  Theseion."    Of 

marble.  In  situ  on  the  temple  in  Athens.  For  a  sketch  of  both 
friezes,  Overbeck  I,  p.  462.  F.  W.,  527,  528 ;  Robinson,  108 ;  Furt- 
wangler  recognizes  in  several  figures  now  in  Copenhagen,  figures  from 
the  now  empty  pediments ;  Sitz.  Munch.  Akad.,  1899,  pp.  279ff.  One 
of  them  is  our  Plate  109,  carved,  as  he  says,  by  Kresilas.  For  a  speci- 
men of  the  metopes  see  Plate  92!). 

There  is  no  consensus  of  opinion  either  as  to  the  name  or 
as  to  the  date  of  the  temple.  The  style  of  the  frieze  would 
seem  to  indicate  an  earlier  date  than  that  of  the  Parthenon, 
perhaps  in  the  era  of  Kimon,  who  was  supreme  before  Peri- 
kles.  The  evidence  from  the  architecture  seems  to  be 
confusing. 

Equal  uncertainty  prevails  in  regard  to  the  proper  name  of 
the  temple,  which  has  been  variously  given  as  temple  of  Ares,1 
of  Apollo  Patroos,  of  Hephaistos,  of  Aphrodite  Urania  and 
of  Herakles  in  Milete.  In  popular  speech  the  temple  con- 
tinues to  be  called  the  "  Theseion,"  temple  of  Theseus. 

The  temple  which  "has2  no  simple  and  easily  appreciable 
relation  between  its  various  proportions  cannot  give  one,  in 
spite  of  its  excellent  state  of  preservation^  an  idea  of  the  best 
Greek  work  in  the  fifth  century."  An  investigation  of  the 
pedimental  floors  has  revealed  the  fact  that  the  now  empty 
pediments  once  contained  figures.  The  carved  metopes,  of 
which  Plate  109  is  a  sample,  ran  along  the  front  and  included 
the  nearest  four,  both  on  the  south  and  on  the  north  sides. 
The  friezes  in  the  colonnade  •*  are  the  best  preserved. 

The  East  Frieze  ran  along  the  entire  width  of  the  colonnade  ; 


'Overbeck  I,  p.  457  and  p.  469,  note  i.  2  Gardner,  Ancient  Athens, 
p.  411.  3  It  was  early  turned  into  a  church  of  St.  George.  4  For  an 
unusually  interesting  picture  of  the  position  of  the  frieze,  see  Gardner, 
Ancient  Athens,  p.  413. 


146  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  West  Frieze  only  along  the  west  wall  of  the  cella  proper. 
It  was,  therefore,  shorter  than  the  East  Frieze  by  double  the 
width  of  the  colonnade.  There  were  no  carved  friezes  on  the 
north  and  south  sides. 

The  design  of  the  East  Frieze  makes  allowances  for  the 
architectural  lines.  At  either  end  of  the  cella  wall  antse,  or 
flattened  columns,  ran  up  toward  the  frieze.  Immediately  over 
these  antae,  groups  of  seated  deities  were  represented,  thus 
continuing  the  stability  of  the  architectural  lines.  Between 
these  groups  the  battle  is  raging,  while  more  quiet  scenes  are 
carved  to  the  right  and  to  the  left  of  them,  that  is  to  say, 
immediately  over  the  colonnade.  The  gods  are  seated  on  un- 
even ground,  and  in  attitudes  that  seem  to  deny  the  existence 
of  the  wall  against  which  they  are  carved.  They  do  not  follow 
the  strict  principles  of  relief  sculpture  l  adhered  to  in  the 
Parthenon,  but  must  not  for  that  reason  be  assigned  to  a  later 
date.2  These  gods,  however,  and  the  group  of  standing  men 
to  the  right,  may  have  suggested  the  gods  and  the  magistrates 
on  the  Parthenon  frieze.  The  figure  immediately  behind  the 
gods  on  the  left  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  Dioskoroi, 
Plate  129. 

The  center  group  of  fighting  men  is  especially  interesting 
on  account  of  the  pictorial  disposition  of  the  dead,s  with  com- 
plete disregard  of  the  strict  principles  of  relief  sculpture.  The 
same  pictorial  element  shows  in  the  West  Frieze,  especially  in 
the  fallen  centaur,  the  foreshortening  of  whose  mighty  body  has 
been  too  much  for  the  sculptor. 

There  are  many  isolated   groups  on  both  friezes,  due  no 


'See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  37-66.  2  lb.,  p.  323.  See  also  reliefs  from 
Delphi,  Plate  43.  3  For  the  representation  of  the  dead  in  relief  sculp- 
ture, see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  55  and  215.  A  similar  design  is  found  on 
the  Athena-Nike  temple  frieze,  Plate  169. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  147 

doubt  to  the  fact  that  the  continuous  frieze  was  of  Ionic  origin 
and  unfamiliar  to  the  Athenians,  whose  earlier  buildings  were 
all  of  the  pure  Doric  style,  where  the  friezes  were  broken  up 
into  metopes  and  triglyphs,  of  which  only  the  former  were 
decorated  with  figures.1  This  made  it  necessary  to  tell  the 
story  by  means  of  separate  groups.  The  problems  of  the  con- 
tinuous frieze  were  different,  but  without  realizing  them,  artists 
often  tried  to  solve  them  by  supplying  connecting  links  be- 
tween independent  groups.  The  favorite  single  group  of  the 
"Theseion"  sculptors  is  pyramidal  in  design,  two  figures  fight- 
ing over  a  third  who  is  overcome.  That  this  motive  has  often 
been  successfully  used  on  these  friezes  is  undoubtedly  true,  but 
wherever  it  is  used  it  leaves  the  connection  to  the  right  and 
to  the  left  weak.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  does  not  occur  on 
the  Parthenon.  An  especially  spirited  group  is  the  Lapith 
Kaineus  on  the  West  Frieze,  whom  two  centaurs  endeavor  to 
put  hors  de  combat  by  placing  him  in  a  hole  in  the  ground 
and  keeping  him  there  by  a  superimposed  rock.  The  use  of 
such  gigantic  weapons  adds  immensely  to  the  interest  of  both 
compositions,  an  interest  that  is  kept  alive  by  the  exercise  of 
almost  superhuman  strength  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  war- 
riors. An  excellent  instance  of  this  is  seen  on  the  West  Frieze, 
where  a  helmeted  youth  hurls  himself  against  a  prancing  cen- 
taur and,  by  the  mere  force  of  his  impact,  drives  him  to  the 
wall. 

1  For  Doric  and  Ionic  friezes  see  E.  von  Mach,  p.  212. 


148  GREEK'  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


The  Parthenon. 

PLATE    134.    Restoration  of  the  Akropolis  in  Athens,  as  it 
looked  at  the  end  of  the  Fifth  Century,  B.  C. 

PLATE  135.    The  Parthenon  in  Athens  from  North  West. 


The  temple  was  begun  shortly  before  450  B.  C.  It  was 
practically  finished  by  438  B.  C.  The  architects  were  Iktinos 
and  Kallikrates.  In  the  Christian  Era  the  Parthenon  was 
changed  into  a  church  of  Hagia  Sophia  (Sacred  Wisdom).  In 
the  thirteenth  century  it  was  taken  over  by  the  Roman  branch 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  its  name  changed  to  that  of  St. 
Mary.  Barring  some  alterations  which  had  been  necessary  to 
adapt  the  temple  to  the  new  cult,  the  Parthenon  stood  un- 
harmed until  September  26,  1687,  when  a  bomb  from  the 
artillery  of  the  Christian  army  besieging  the  Turks  in  Athens 
was  wilfully  directed  toward  it,  and  exploded  in  its  interior. 

There  is  one  standard  book  for  the  study  of  the  Parthenon, 
its  history,  architecture,  and  decorations,  A.  Michaelis,  Der 
Parthenon,  text  and  plates,  published  in  1871.  All  other 
books  are  based  on  Michaelis ;  none  have  even  attempted  to 
supersede  him.  The  most  recent  and  most  fully  illustrated 
book  is  A.  S.  Murray,  The  Parthenon ;  the  fullest  account  of 
the  dimensions,  Penrose,  Principles  of  Athenian  Architecture ; 
the  fullest  discussion  of  the  art  principles  which  the  sculptured 
decoration  of  the  Parthenon  follow,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  37-66 
and  211-247. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  149 


Special  References. 

GENERAL.  The  Connection  of  Pheidias  with  the  Parthenon, 
denied  by  H.  N.  Fowler,  Harvard  Studies  in  Classical  Phi- 
lology, 1901,  pp.  211-220;  but  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  211, 
212.  The  drawings  said  to  be  made  by  Jacques  Carrey  of  the 
Parthenon  in  1673  are  now  in  the  Louvre.  The  authorship 
of  Carrey  denied  by  E.  Babelon,  C.  R.  Acad.  Inst.,  1900,  pp. 
263-264.  The  history  of  the  Parthenon  marbles,  related  by 
Ph.  E.  Legrand,  Rev.  Arch.,  1894,  Vol.  25,  pp.  28-33. 

THE  BUILDING.  The  mixture  of  Doric  and  Ionian  elements 
in  the  architecture  of  the  temple.  For  a  similar  mixture  of 
the  two  elements  see  the  Doric  temple  of  Athena  in  Delphi 
with  Ionic  half  columns,  discussed  by  Th.  Homolle,  C.  R. 
Acad.  Inst.,  1901,  pp.  638-641.  The  curvature  of  the  hori- 
zontal lines  of  the  Parthenon  recently  copied  on  the  steps  of 
the  Library  of  Columbia  University,  A.  J.  A.,  1900,  Vol.  IV, 

P-  376. 

THE  PEDIMENTS.  Copies  of  lost  figures  of  the  West  Pedi- 
ment found  in  Dresden  by  Chas.  Waldstein,  Harper's  Maga- 
zine, December,  1900,  pp.  i2ff.  Copy  of  Athena  of  the  West 
Pediment,  on  a  vase  painting,  Ernest  Gardner,  J.  H.  S.,  Ill, 
pp.  244ff. 

The  floor  of  the  East  Pediment  examined  by  B.  Sauer  with 
a  view  to  ascertaining  the  original  position  of  the  figures, 
Athen.  Mitth.,  1891,  XVI,  pp.  sgff.  Reconstruction  of  the 
center  by  J.  Six,  based  on  Sauer's  worjc,  Jahrbuch,  1894,  IX, 
pp.  83ff.  Furtwangler's  Restoration,  Masterpieces,  pp.  463ff. 
See,  however,  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  23 iff.,  especially  p.  233,  last 
paragraph. 

The  birth  of  Athena,  which  was  the  subject  of  the  East 
Pediment,  is  found  on  many  monuments.  One  dates  from 


!5o  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  end  of  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  others  on  vases. 
S.  Reinach,  Rev.  Etudes  Grecques,  1901,  127-137  (Review, 
A.J.  A.,  V,  1901,  p.  462)  ;  also  on  an  archaic  relief  in  Con- 
stantinople where  Zeus  is  seen  in  travail  before  the  birth.  S. 
Reinach,  C.  R.  Acad.  Inst.,  1900,  p.  699.  Correspondence  of 
subject  with  Creation  of  Eve,  Kekule,  Jahrbuch,  1890,  Vol. 
V,  pp.  i86ff. 

The  horse  of  Selene  compared  with  horse's  head  from 
Tarentum,  now  in  British  Museum,  A.  Michaelis,  J.  H.  S.,  Ill, 
pp.  234ff.,  PI.  24,  with  a  note  by  Percy  Gardner,  dating  head 
the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century. 

THE  FRIEZE.  The  movements  of  the  horses ;  fully  illus- 
trated article,  La  Representation  du  Galop  dans  r Art  Ancient 
et  Moderne,  S.  Reinach,  Rev.  Arch.,  1900,  pp.  2i6ff.,  44 iff., 
and  1901,  pp.  224ff. 

The  attendants  of  the  priest  on  the  East  Frieze.  Their 
meaning  explained  by  Jane  Harrison,  Class.  Review,  October, 
1889,  p.  378,  with  a  note  by  Chas.  Waldstein. 

The  god  hugging  his  knees,  on  East  Frieze,  compared  with 
vase  paintings,  where  this  attitude  is  expressive  of  impatience, 
as  in  the  scenes  of  Odysseus  and  Achilles.  Rev.  Arch.,  1898, 
Vol.  33,  figs.  5,  6,  7. 

Peitho,  so-called,  on  East  Frieze.  Her  prototype  perhaps 
found  on  a  clay  relief  in  the  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens,  B.  C. 
H.,  1897,  PI.  XII,  fig.  i.  The  style  of  this  relief  corresponds 
with  that  of  our  Plate  94. 

Heavily  clad  youths  on  North  Frieze.  Their  prototypes  per- 
haps found  in  the  Achilles  of  the  Odysseus  and  Achilles  scenes 
referred  to  above.  Rev.  Arch.,  1898,  Vol.  33,  figs.  5,6,  7,  a-o. 

Newly  discovered  fragments.  Head  of  Iris,  East  Frieze  ; 
Chas.  Waldstein,  A.  J.  A.,  first  series,  Vol.  V,  pp.  iff,  PI.  II. 
Head  of  boy  and  horse  of  North  Frieze;  A.  S.  Murray,  Journal 
of  the  Royal  Institute  of  British  Architects,  1902-1903,  X,  pp. 
3iff.  (Review,  A.J.  A.,  VII,  1903,  p.  390.) 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  151 

THE  METOPES.  Metopes  of  the  west  side.  Complete  set 
of  pictures,  A.J.  A.,  1899,  Pis.  V  and  VI,  and  figs.  1-14 ;  text 
by  W.  S.  Ebersole,  pp.  4096^.,  introducing  several  important 
corrections  of  the  statements  by  Michaelis  in  Der  Parthenon. 

The  central  metopes  of  the  south  side.  Pernice,  Jahrbuch 
X,  1895,  PP-  93°°-  The  question  why  they  were  inserted  in 
this  side  he  leaves  unanswered. 

Newly  discovered  fragments.  Head  of  South  Metope,  PI. 
1 6,  by  Charles  Waldstein,  /.  H.  S.,  Ill,  pp.  228ff.,  PI.  23. 
Head  of  South  Metope  V,  the  only  head  of  advanced  style. 
G.  Treu,  Jahrbuch  XII,  1897,  pp.  loif. 

Additional  Literature  on  the  Parthenon. 

Stuart  and  Revett,  Antiquities  of  Athens,  with  pictures  of 
the  Parthenon  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Gregorovius,  Athen  im  Mittelalter. 

A.  Laborde,  Le  Parthenon,  reproducing  all  of  Carrey's 
drawings. 

Charles  Waldstein,  Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias. 

E.  Petersen,  Die  Kunst  des  Pheidias. 

L.  Fenger,  Dorische  Polychromie,  with  colored  plates  show- 
ing the  application  of  color. 

A.  Botticher,  Die  Akropolis  von  Athen. 

M.  Beule,  L'Akropole  d '  Athenes. 

H.  Luckenbach,  Die  Akropolis  von  Athen. 

Full  bibliography  of  the  Parthenon,  British  Museum  Cata- 
logue after  History  of  the  Parthenon. 

PLATE  136.  The  "Fates."  From  the  East  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon.  British  Museum,  London. 

PLATE  13?.  "  Theseus."  From  the  East  Pediment  of  the  Parthe- 
non. British  Museum. 


1 52  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  138.  "  Iris."  From  the  East  Pediment  of  the  Parthenon. 
British  Museum. 

PLATE  139.  "Nike."  Probably  from  the  East  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon.  British  Museum. 

PLATE  I40a.    Helios  and  Two  of  His  Horses.    From  the  East 

Pediment  of  the  Parthenon.     British  Museum. 

PLATE  I40b.    Selene  and  One  of  Her  Horses.    From  the  East 

Pediment  of  the    Parthenon.     The  torso   in  the  Akropolis  Museum, 
Athens.     The  horse's  head  in  the  British  Museum. 

PLATE  141.  "KephiSSOS"  Or  "IliSSOS."  From  the  West  Pedi- 
ment of  the  Parthenon. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  24.  "  Hermes."  From  the  West  Pedi- 
ment of  the  Parthenon.  British  Museum. 

These  eight  figures  comprise  practically 1  all  of  the  pedi- 
mental  figures  that  are  sufficiently  well  preserved  to  afford 
pleasure.  Their  names  are  still  under  dispute,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Helios,  the  sun-god,  and  Selene,  the  goddess  of  the 
moon.  But  our  enjoyment  of  these  figures  is  fortunately  not 
dependent  on  our  knowledge  of  the  exact  personalities  which 
the  artists  intended 2  to  portray.  These  figures  and  the  com- 
positions of  both  pediments  are  fully  discussed  in  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  230-247,  where  hints  for  an  appreciative  study  of 
the  Parthenon  pediments  are  given. 

PLATES  142-156.  A  Complete  Set  of  Pictures  of  the  West  Frieze 
Of  the  Parthenon.  Still  in  its  original  place  on  the  Parthenon. 

1  The  others  that  might  be  classed  with  them  are,  of  the  East  Pedi- 
ment, a  male  torso  (Michaelis  H),  and  of  the  West  Pediment,  a  group  of 
a  man  and  a  girl  in  situ  (Michaelis  B),  torso  of  a  woman  (Michaelis  O), 
torso  of  Poseidon  (Michaelis  M),  torso  of  Athena  (Michaelis  L). 

2  For  long  lists  of  interpretations  offered  up  to  1871,  see  Michaelis, 
pp.  165,  180,  and  181. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'53 


PLATE  157.  Seated  Gods.  From  the  East  Frieze  of  the  Parthe- 
non. British  Museum. 

PLATE  158.     Maidens.     From  the  East  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon. 

British  Museum. 

PLATE  159.  Magistrates.  From  the  East  Frieze  of  the  Parthe- 
non. British  Museum. 

These  are  samples  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  The  frieze  itself 
is  reproduced  in  its  entire  extent  on  the  plates  accompanying 
this  handbook.  Hints  and  directions  for  the  study  of  the 
frieze  are  given  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  218-230,  and  pp.  48-66, 
also  37-48. 

PLATES  160-164.   Metopes  from  the  South  Side  of  the  Parthenon. 

British  Museum,  London,  and  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens.  For  frag- 
ments of  West  Parthenon  Metopes  see  Ephemeris,  1894,  pp.  iSjf., 
Plates  10  and  n. 

These  are  eight  of  the  seventeen  or  eighteen  fairly  well- 
preserved  metopes  of  the  Parthenon.  Originally  there  were 
ninety-two.  Those  of  the  south  side,  representing,  with  the 
exception  of  the  nine  in  the  center,  the  fight  against  the  cen- 
taurs, are  the  only  metopes  sufficiently  well-preserved  to  make 
one  sure  of  their  subjects.  Hints  for  the  study  of  the  Parthenon 
metopes  are  given  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  213-218,  46-48,  also 
37-45- 

PLATE  165.  The  Erechtheion.  Viewed  from  the  south-west,  with 
its  south  porch,  or  Hall  of  the  Maidens,  in  the  foreground.  For  a 
ground  plan  of  the  Erechtheion  see  British  Museum  Catalogue,  p.  232, 
also Baumeister, s.  v.  Erechtheion;  for  another  view, Text  Illustration  34. 

The  Erechtheion  is  later  than  the  Parthenon.  It  was  prob- 
ably J  begun  after  the  Peace  of  Nikias  in  421  B.  C.  By  409 

1  Gardner,  Ancient  Athens,  p.  236. 


1 54  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

B.  C.  it  was  almost  finished  and  a  commission  '  was  appointed 
to  attend  to  its  completion.  The  date  of  the  completion  of 
the  temple  is  not  definitely  known.  In  the  fifth  century  of 
our  era  the  Erechtheion,  like  the  Parthenon,  was  turned  into 
a  Christian  church,  but  greater  changes  were  necessary  here 
than  in  the  larger  temple  to  adapt  it  to  its  new  use.  This  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  temple,  which  consisted  of  two  inde- 
pendent halls,  was  built  on  two  levels,  with  the  east  hall  much 
higher  than  the  other.  The  two  compartments  were  thrown 
into  one  by  the  Christians.  The  building  suffered  much  dur- 
ing the  siege  of  Athens  in  1687,  and  again  during  the  struggle 
for  freedom  early  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  groundplan  of  the  temple  is  unique,  necessitated  by  the 
two  levels  on  which  the  temple  proper,  of  oblong  shape,  was 
built.  The  entrance  to  the  eastern  chamber  was  through  an 
east  portico  of  six  columns  (not  shown  on  Plate  165).  Broad 
and  easily  graded  steps  led  down  along  the  outside  of  the 
north  wall2  to  the  lower  level,  from  which  the  western  cham- 
ber was  entered  through  a  magnificent  portico.  This  northern 
portico  was  deeper  but  less  wide  than  the  other.  It  had  four 
columns  in  front  and  one  between  each  corner  column  and  the 
wall.  The  door  leading  from  it  into  the  temple  is  seen  in 
Plate  165  to  the  left  of  the  Porch  of  the  Maidens. 

The  Porch  of  the  Maidens,  often  called  the  Hall  of  the 
Karyatides,  was  not  used  by  the  public.  It  contained  a  very 
small  entrance,  like  a  private  door,  behind  the  Maiden  in  the 
back  row  on  the  spectator's  right.  The  floor  of  this  hall  was 

1  The  report  of  this  commission  is  preserved  on  stone,  Corpus  In- 
scriptiomtm  Atticarum,  I,  332 ;  also  the  account  of  the  expenses  for 
the  next  year,  ib.,  I,  324. 

2  The  long  wall   back  of  the  Porch  of   the  Maidens  and  to  their 
right,  seen  on  Plate  165,  is  the  south  wall. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'55 


about  on  a  level  with  the  east  chamber  and,  therefore,  con- 
siderably higher  than  the  floor  of  the  chamber  in  front  of 
which  it  stood.  This  is  readily  seen  on  the  illustration  by 
comparing  the  level  of  the  porch  with  the  north  door,  of  which 
only  the  top  shows. 

To-day  after  several  recent  earthquakes  the  temple  stands 
in  need  of  repairs.  The  plan  of  restorations1  includes  the 
north  portico  and  the  west  wall,  to  the  left  of  the  Maidens  in 
the  illustration.  This  wall  once  contained  engaged  columns. 
It  is  not  known,  however,  whether  they  formed  part  of  the 
original  plan,  or  were  added  in  a  renovation  that  became  nec- 
essary very  soon  after  the  temple  was  built.  The  architecture 
belongs  to  the  finest  that  has  been  created.  Every  detail  is 
as  delicate  as  the  general  harmony  of  the  dimensions  of  the 
entire  building. 


PLATE  166.    One  of  the  Maidens 2  of  the  Porch  of  the  Maidens 3 

Of  the  Erechtheion.  Of  Pentelic  Marble.  British  Museum,  London. 
Removed  to  England  by  Lord  Elgin  with  the  permission  of  the  Porte 
obtained  in  1801,  and  bought  by  the  British  Museum  in  1806.  British 
Museum  Catalogue,  407;  F.  W.,  810;  Robinson,  747 ;  E.  von  Mach, 
p.  263,  PI.  XVII,  fig.  2. 


1  Represented,  A.J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  355. 

2  They  are  called  Maidens  (Korai)  in  the  official  inscriptions.     By 
reason  of  their  resemblance  to  the  basket-bearing  girls  on  the  Parthe- 
non  frieze,  some    call  them  "  Kanephorai,"  while   still  others   follow 
Vitruvius  (I   Chapter    i),   who   calls   them   "  Karyatides,"  girls   from 
Karya,  a  town  in  Arkadia.     These  girls,  as  punishment  for  the  treach- 
ery of  their  town,  so  Vitruvius  says,  were  portrayed  in  architectural 
schemes  as  carrying  burdens  on  their  heads. 

3  It  is  the  second  figure  from  the  left  in  the  front  row.    A  terra-cotta 
fac-simile  has  been  placed  in  the  temple.     This  is  the  figure  which,  on 
Plate  165,  is  seen  in  the  deep  shadow  of  the  architrave. 


!^6  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

So  perfectly  are  these  figures  designed  to  fill  their  places 
that  one  pays  no  heed  to  the  uncomfortable  thought  of 
maidens  carrying  heavy  burdens.  And  yet  one  never  forgets 
their  architectural  importance,  as  one  doubtless  would  do  if 
they  were  nothing  but  ornaments,  or  if  their  strength  appeared 
to  be  so  great  that  duty  was  turned  into  play.  Their  burden 
has  been  lightened,  to  be  sure,  by  the  architect,  who  made  the 
entablature  which  they  bear  much  smaller  than  is  customary 
when  columns  carry  the  weight.  He  has  omitted  the  frieze ' ;  — 
a  doubly  successful  scheme,  for  the  frieze  would  have  been 
decorated  with  figures ;  and  the  contrast  between  these  and 
the  maidens  would  have  revealed  the  unreality  of  the  entire 
composition. 

No  two  of  the  maidens  are  exactly  alike ;  for  in  order  to 
have  the  entablature  above  correspond  to  the  wall  below,  the 
corner  figures  must  incline  diagonally  to  their  right  and  left 
respectively.  If  they  stood  straight,  the  top  of  the  porch 
would  be  smaller  than  the  bottom.  The  two  middle  figures 
are  posed  so  as  to  make  the  strong  contrasts  between  the 
corner  figures  disappear,  which  could  be  done  the  more  easily 
as  there  was  a  change  of  legs  in  the  center,  the  three  girls  on 
the  left  supporting  the  weight  of  their  bodies  on  their  right 
legs,  the  other  three  supporting  it  on  their  left  legs.  The  fig- 
ures in  the  back  row  had  to  act  as  intermediaries  between 
the  corner  maidens  leaning  diagonally  outward  and  the  antse 
(flattened  columns)  on  the  wall,  following,  roughly  speaking, 
a  straight  vertical  line. 

The  arms  of  all  the  maidens  are  broken.  One  arm  prob- 
ably hung  down  the  side,  while  the  other  pulled  a  corner  of 
the  drapery  forward. 

A  detailed  comparison  with  other  contemporaneous  draped 

'Compare  Plate  1 68,  the  Athena-Nike  Temple,  where  both  frie^ 
and  architrave  are  seen  above  the  columns. 


35-       GIANT    FROM 
AGRIGENTUM. 


36.       HERAKLES,    LOUVRE. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'57 


statues  of  women  is  not  fair,  because  these  maidens  were  in- 
tended for  a  distant  view ;  yet  so  perfect  is  the  workmanship 
of  all  the  decorations  of  the  Erechtheion  that  even  near  at 
hand  they  are  admirable.  The  pose  of  the  girls,  moreover, 
firmly  planted  on  one  foot,  was  required  by  the  architectural 
setting.  But  it  is  possible  that  similar  poses  of  ordinary  statues 
(see,  for  instance,  the  woman  in  Copenhagen,  Plate  77,  or  the 
Apollo  in  Munich,  Text  Illustration  25)  with  the  flute-like 
appearance  of  the  folds  of  their  drapery  along  one  leg,  sug- 
gested to  the  artist  the  use  which  he  could  make  of  them  as 
parts  of  his  architectural  schemes. 

PLATE  16T.  Maiden,  "  Karyatid."  Roman  work.  Of  marble. 
Vatican,  Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in 
Palazzo  Panganica,  since  1828  in  the  Vatican.  Restorations,  made 
under  the  supervision  of  Thorwaldsen  :  the  head,  both  fore  arms,  the 
part  of  the  robe  held  in  the  left  hand,  the  feet,  and  the  plinth.  Hel- 
big,  I,  Reinach  I,  219,  4. 

The  beautiful  refinement  and  delicacy  of  the  Athenian 
Maiden  is  best  appreciated  when  it  is  compared  with  this 
pattern-made  Roman  figure.'  Text  Illustration  35  represents 
one  of  the  giants  from  Agrigentum  used  as  architectural  sup- 
ports. Again  the  superiority  of  the  Athenian  artist  appears. 
He  knew  that  human  figures  as  burden-bearers  in  buildings 
are  satisfactory  not  when  the  tax  on  their  strength  is  noticed, 
as  is  the  case  with  this  giant,  but  when  they  appear  to  be  cre- 
ated for  the  very  performance  of  their  office,  like  the  maidens 
of  the  Erechtheion. 

1  Other  interesting  comparisons  are  with  the  early  "  Karyatides  " 
from  the  treasufy  of  the  Knidians  in  Delphi.  They  are  described, 
A.  J.  A.,  V,  1901,  p.  461.  In  Korinth  colossal  figures  were  placed 
against  pillars  as  decorations,  but  they  were  not  themselves  supporting 
anything.  See  A.  J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  464,  and  Plate  IV. 


1 58  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  168.    Temple  of  Athena  Nike,  also  called  "  Nike  Apte- 

rOS,"1  from  the  east.  Akropolis,  Athens.  Furtwangler,  Master- 
pieces, pp.  422ff. ;  Wolters,  Banner  Studien,  1890,  pp.  gaff.;  British 
Museum  Catalogue,  pp.  239ff.,  with  a  plan  of  the  location  of  the  tem- 
ple. For  the  frieze  see  also  F.  W.,  747-760;  Robinson,  490  ;  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  55ff.  For  the  balustrade,  F.  W.,  761-804;  Robinson,  491- 
497  ;  J.  H.  S.,  VI," pp.  244ff. ;  and  especially  Kekule,  Die  Reliefs  an  der 
Balustrade  der  Athena  Nike.  The  dimensions  of  the  temple  are  not 
quite  eighteen  feet  by  a  little  over  twenty-seven  feet. 

The  temple  was  built  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  fifth  century. 
The  exact  date  is  not  known.  It  remained  practically  unin- 
jured until  1680,  when  the  Turks  took  it  down,  and  built  its 
stones  into  a  fortification  wall.  In  1835  this  wall  was  removed 
and  the  temple  re-erected  on  its  own  foundation  with  hardly  a 
stone  missing.  Only  the  roof  and  the  pediments  are  lost. 
The  slabs  of  the  west  frieze,  which  were  visible  in  1801,  when 
Lord  Elgin  formed  his  collection  in  Athens,  are  now  in  the 
British  Museum. 

The  views  from  this  temple  toward  the  sea,  with  Aigina  and 
Arkadia  in  the  distance,  and  along  the  Sacred  Way  to  Eleusis, 
belong  to  the  finest  views  of  the  many  of  which  Athens  can 
boast. 

The  temple  is  built  in  the  Ionian  style,  with  slender,  deep- 
fluted  columns  on  bases,  and  the  characteristic  Ionian  capi- 
tals.2 There  is  no  colonnade  about  this  temple  which  has 
only  two  porticos,  one  in  front  and  one  in  the  rear. 

1  Temple  of  the  Wingless  Victory.     This  name  was  given  the  tem- 
ple because  Athena,  the  goddess  of   war,  was  worshipped   as  having 
brought  victory.     She  was  thus  a  Nike  (Victory).     The  goddess  Nike, 
however,  was  invariably  represented  with  wings,  Athena,  on  the  other 
hand,  without  wings.     To  distinguish  the  two  Nike  deities,  the  Athena 
Nike  was  called  the  Wingless  Nike. 

2  The  characteristic  difference  between  the  corner  capitals  and  the 
others  shows  well  on  the  illustration.     The  corner  capitals  had  their 
end  volutes  diagonally  drawn  out,  with  a  volute  carved  in  low  relief  on 
either  side  of  this  projection. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'59 


The  East  Frieze,  Text  Illustrations  37  and  38,  seems  to 
represent  an  assembly  of  the  gods.  The  other  three  friezes 
are  possibly  commemorative  of  the  Persian  wars.  On  the  south 
and  north  sides  Greeks  are  fighting  with  Persians,  on  the  west 
side  Greeks  with  Greeks.  This,  as  has  been  suggested,  refers 
to  the  battle  of  Plataia,  where  the  Athenians  fought  the 
Thebans  who  had  taken  sides  with  the  Persians. 

The  temple  was  built  on  a  narrow  projecting  ledge  of  the 
Akropolis,  and  was  therefore  surrounded  by  a  balustrade,  sev- 
eral slabs  of  which  are  preserved. 

PLATE  169.  Slabs  from  the  West  Frieze  of  the  Athena-Nike 
Temple  in  Athens.  Of  Pentelic  Marble.  British  Museum. 

The  deviation '  from  the  strict  principles  of  relief  sculpture, 
followed  by  the  Parthenon  artists,  is  at  once  noticed.  The 
pictorial  element  is  prominent,  and  the  existence  of  an  abso- 
lutely rigid  wall,  against  which  the  figures  are  carved,  is  de- 
nied. Even  a  tree  is  introduced,  although  in  very  delicate 
lines.  In  one  place  a  man  is  seen  back  to,  but  apparently 
with  sufficient  space  to  continue  his  fight.  This  means  the 
introduction  of  air  as  background.  In  many  respects,  there- 
fore, this  frieze  is  more  like  the  frieze  from  Delphi,  Plate  43, 
than  like  the  Parthenon. 

The  lines  of  the  Athena-Nike  temple  frieze  are  very  pleas- 
ing, suggestive  of  a  confused  battle  scene,  without  themselves 
being  confused.  The  only  blemish  is  found  in  some  of  the 
fluttering  garments,  which  are  too  obviously  given  to  the  wind 
that  they  may  fill  empty  spaces. 

PLATES  iro  and  in.  Two  Slabs  from  the  Balustrade  of  the 
Athena-Nike  Temple.  Of  Pentelic  Marble.  Akropolis  Museum 
Athens. 

1  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  55ff . 


160  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  29.  One  additional  Nike  of  the  Balus- 
trade. 

On  the  slab,  Plate  170,  the  support  of  the  right  foot  is 
broken  away,  so  that  Nike  now  seems  to  be  holding  her  foot 
in  the  air.  She  thus  seems  to  have  assumed  a  very  uncom- 
fortable, almost  untenable,  position.  This  was  not  the  case 
originally.  She  had  stopped  where  the  ground  was  uneven, 
and  had  placed  her  foot  on  a  little  elevation  to  readjust  her 
sandal  straps. 

The  transparency  of  her  chiton  and  the  fall  of  her  himation 
in  heavier  folds  are  motives  borrowed  from  the  "  Fates  "  of 
the  Parthenon,  Plate  136,  whose  dignity  she  lacks.  Hers  is 
a  graceful  body,  ready  to  receive  a  casual  glance  as  one  passes 
along  to  the  little  temple,  and  pleasantly  remembered.  Studied 
in  detail,  she  is  not  so  impressive ;  for  the  unreality  of  her 
body  showing  clearly  even  through  the  double  garment  is 
too  apparent.  As  a  "  decorative  relief,  however,  rich  in  flow- 
ing lines  and  varied  ways  of  drapery,"  she  is  unrivalled.  The 
critic  who  emphasizes  the  defects  of  this  figure  rather  than 
its  beauty  may  be  reminded  of  the  words  of  the  Greek  poet : 

"  Why  should  little  things  be  blamed  ? 
Little  things  for  love  are  made." 

Great  dash  is  shown  in  the  Nike  on  the  second  slab,  Plate 
171.  But  here  also  the  excited  fluttering  of  the  drapery,  not 
entirely  in  keeping  with  the  action  of  the  figure,  spoils  the 
pleasure  of  continuous  study.  For  a  moment's  view  this  Nike, 
like  the  other,  is  a  source  of  pleasing  thoughts. 

If  one  would  fully  realize  the  gulf  that  separates  her  from 
the  Parthenon,  one  ought  to  contrast '  her  with  the  "  Nike  " 

'Another  extremely  interesting  comparison  is  with  a  relief  in  the 
Glyptothek  in  Munich  (No.  264,  F.  W.,  808),  Text  Illustration  32.  The 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  161 

of  the  East  Pediment,  Plate  139.  There  the  beauty  of  form 
is  made  subservient  to  the  expression  of  a  mighty  thought, 
until  the  form  is  almost  forgotten.  Here  the  form  is  every- 
thing. 

PLATES  172  and  1T3.  Four  Slabs  from  the  Frieze  of  the  Temple 
of  Apollo  at  Bassai,  near  Phigaleia,  in  Arkadia.  Of  marble.  Brit- 
ish Museum,  London.  Discovered  1811-1812;  purchased  by  the 
British  Museum  in  1814.  F.  W.,  883ff. ;  Robinson,  424  ;  and  especially 
British  Museum  Catalogue,  52off.,  together  with  the  Introduction  to 
these  numbers  and  full  bibliography.  For  the  history  of  the  building, 
its  plan,  the  architectural  fragments  and  the  remains  of  the  metopes, 
see  British  Museum  Catalogue  I,  pp.  27off. ;  plan,  fig.  22. 

The  exact  date  of  the  temple  is  not  known.  Iktinos,  one 
of  the  architects  of  the  Parthenon,  built  it,  probably  between 
430  and  420  B.  C.  In  Phigaleia '  the  ground  offered  heavy 
obstacles  to  the  adoption  of  the  stereotype  plan  of  a  Greek 
temple  ;  a  deep  ravine  making  it  impossible  to  face  the  temple 
lengthwise  east  and  west.  The  temple  image,  however,  had 
to  face  east ;  perhaps  there  had  even  been  an  older  sanctuary 
which  Iktinos  was  bidden  to  enclose  in  his  plan  without  alter- 
ing its  location.  The  fact  is,  a  very  unusual  arrangement  was 
adopted.  A  small  sanctuary  facing  east  had  added  to  it,  on 
the  north,  a  large  chamber  ;  both  compartments  together  from 

figure  on  the  right  is  obviously  copied  from  the  Athena-Nike  Balus- 
trade. The  copyist  has  omitted  the  wings  and  has  changed  the  motive 
of  the  pose  to  the  rather  incredible  picking  up  of  a  tainia  with  the 
foot.  By  contrast  with  this  copy  the  drapery  of  the  original  gains  in 
dignity.  Still  further  removed  from  the  original  is  the  Roman  relief, 
Text  Illustration  33,  which  might  almost  be  called  a  travesty. 

1  The  temple  was  really  in  Bassai.  It  is,  however,  customarily  spoken 
of  as  the  temple  of  Phigaleia.  Bassai  means  "  the  ravine,"  and  there 
was  no  settlement  near  it. 


1 62  GREEK:  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  outside  having  the  appearance  of  an  ordinary  temple,  ex- 
cept that  their  long  axis  ran  north  and  south  instead  of  west 
and  east.  This  appearance  was  enhanced  by  porticos  on 
either  side  and  by  a  surrounding  colonnade.  The  entrance 
to  the  sanctuary  was  through  a  door  opposite  the  columns 
numbers  six  and  seven  on  the  long  east  side.  It  could  also 
be  entered  from  the  large  adjoining  room,  whose  wall  was 
pierced,  and  to  which  there  was  probably  a  separate  entrance 
from  the  north  portico.  Inside  the  large  room  there  was  a 
kind  of  a  colonnade  formed  by  engaged  columns  on  project- 
ing tiers.  The  frieze  was  placed  above  the  architrave  over 
these  columns. 

The  frieze  was  thus  fundamentally  different  from  other 
known  Greek  friezes  in  that  it  decorated  the  inside  instead  of 
the  outside  of  a  sanctuary.  The  Parthenon  frieze  could  be 
viewed  only  by  traveling  along  with  it ;  the  Phigaleia  frieze 
could  be  studied  in  its  entirety  from  one  spot  by  turning 
around  from  one  side  of  the  room  to  the  other.  The  Par- 
thenon frieze  was  placed  in  the  semi-dark  of  the  colonnade, 
dependent  exclusively  on  the  reflected  light  from  below.  The 
Phigaleia  frieze  doubtless  received  some  light '  from  above. 

All  these  and  several  more  differences  necessitated  an  en- 
tirely different  design  and  a  different  technique  in  Phigaleia. 
The  relief  is  high  rather  than  low,2  and  its  action  "  open " 
rather  than  "  closed."  Very  few  faces  are  seen  in  profile,  be- 
cause the  position  of  the  frieze  made  a  view  from  all  sides 
possible.  If  a  face  in  Phigaleia  is  nevertheless  in  profile  it  is 
placed  so  near  another  object  that  its  averted  side  cannot  be 
seen  even  though  one  approach  it  from  the  direction  toward 


1  The  lighting  of  Greek  temples  is  as  yet  an  unsettled  question. 

2  For  the  conditions  determining  the  use  of  either  high  or  low  relief 
see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  4off. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  ^3 

which  the  head  is  looking.  This  is  well  seen  in  Plate  1723, 
where  the  profile  head  of  the  boy  is  placed  close  to  the  head 
of  the  centaur,  or  in  Plate  1 733.,  where  the  boy's  leg  prevents 
a  view  of  the  other  side  of  the  centaur  head. 

The  subjects  of  the  frieze  are  the  fight  against  the  centaurs 
on  two  sides,  and  the  fight  against  the  Amazons  on  the  other 
sides.  One  might,  however,  well  call  them  the  Reign  of  Un- 
bridled Passion.  Nothing  is  sacred  to  the  tribe  of  the  centaurs. 
The  mother  with  her  baby  in  her  arms  is  wantonly  attacked  by 
one,  while  another  strips  a  woman  at  the  very  feet  of  the  god- 
dess, to  whose  image  she  clings.  This  madness  of  the  enemies 
has  kindled  the  passion  of  fury  in  the  hearts  of  the  defenders, 
and  has  embued  them  with  unwonted  strength.  One  youth 
hurling  himself  upon  a  centaur  wrenches  the  head  of  his  foe 
back  until  one  almost  hears  the  cracking  of  the  broken  back- 
bone of  the  vanquished  man-beast.  Another  pulls  his  foe 
along  by  the  hair,  while  his  brother,  kneeling  on  the  horsey 
body,  is  ready  to  deal  his  enemy  the  death  blow,  when  he  is 
arrested  by  a  centaur  back  of  him.  The  height  of  excitement 
is  seen  in  the  group  where  a  centaur,  attacked  by  two  youths, 
is  fighting  with  one  boy  man-fashion,  and  is  kicking  at  the 
other  with  his  horse's  legs. 

The  frieze  is  full  of  stirring  incidents.  It  cannot  be  viewed 
as  placidly  as  the  Parthenon  frieze.  One  must  take  part  in 
the  struggle.  Here  one  pities,  there  one  hates,  again  one 
fears,  and  at  another  time  one  gives  a  sigh  of  relief.  "Who  is 
the  artist,"  one  instinctively  asks,  "  who  knew  so  well  how  to 
play  on  the  passions  of  men  ?  "  His  name  is  not  recorded, 
and  one  turns  to  the  reliefs  themselves  in  the  hope  of  finding 
there  an  indication  of  his  identity.  But  one  is  mistaken. 
The  figures  offer  a  surprising  medley  of  types  from  almost 
everywhere.  The  centaur,  Plate  1 733,  is  copied  after  the  Par- 
thenon metope  with  the  dead  Greek.  There  is  the  fluttering 


164  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

panther  skin  and  there  the  whisking  tail  !  The  motive,  Plate 
1725,  is  a  curious  mixture  of  the  body  of  one  of  the  "  Fates," 
Plate  136,  and  of  the  bulging  folds  of  the  "Iris"  from  the 
Parthenon,  Plate  138.  The  woman  with  arms  extended  re- 
minds one  of  the  "Venus  Genetrix,"  Plate  108,  and  the  youth 
hurling  himself  upon  the  centaur  on  the  same  slab  seems  to  be 
inspired  by  the  West  Pediment  of  Olympia,1  as  is  the  boy 
thrusting  his  sword  into  the  vitals  of  his  foe,  who  is  fighting 
man  and  beast  fashion  alike.  Scanning  all  the  slabs  in  the 
British  Museum,  one  finds  correspondences  with  almost  all 
known  monuments  of  the  fifth  century. 

This  is  surprising,  but  far  more  surprising  is  the  lack  of  skill, 
one  might  almost  say  the  carelessness,  with  which  the  more 
telling  incidents  and  gestures  are  dashed  off.  Proper  propor- 
tions, beauty  in  detail,  convincing  grouping,  —  these  are  ideas 
that  the  sculptors  have  glaringly  ignored.  From  the  woman 
with  outspread  arms  on  Plate  172,  to  the  dying  centaur  on 
Plate  1 73,  there  is  hardly  a  figure  that,  taken  from  its  context, 
would  not  call  forth  violent  criticism.  The  left  leg  of  the  half- 
nude  woman  is  too  long,  the  centaur's  hind  legs  are  impossi- 
ble. The  youth  does  not  kneel  on  the  centaur's  back,  as  does 
his  brother  further  on,  but  seems  to  be  slipping  from  it.  The 
gap  behind  him  is  filled  with  a  tree.  The  body  of  the  centaur 
seizing  the  mother  is  too  small,  while  her  mantle  surrounding 
her  babe  flutters  in  front  of  her  instead  of  behind  her,  and  her 
feet  are  poor.  And  so  one  might  go  on  pointing  out  defects. 

But  then  there  are  again  wonderfully  expressive  motives. 
The  agonized  gesture  of  the  centaur,  on  Plate  1733,  pressing 
his  hand,  with  thumb  spread  out,  against  his  wound  ; 2  the 

'The  correspondence  with  Olympia  is  especially  clear  on  several 
slabs  not  shown  here,  notably  Overbeck  I,  fig.  131,  west  6 ;  and  in  the 
mode  of  fighting,  ib.,  fig.  132,  south  23. 

2  For  a  similar  gesture  see  one  of  the  Parthenon  metopes,  where  the 
hand  itself,  however,  is  hidden  in  the  shadow. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  165 

boy  kneeling  on  him  and  the  other  pulling  him  ;  the  helpless 
nudity  of  the  woman  clinging  to  the  idol,1  and  many  more. 
Fine  details  also  are  not  lacking.  Even  the  lines  in  the  hands 
of  some  of  the  figures  have  been  carved  true  to  nature,2  while 
the  hands  3  of  Artemis,  on  the  slab  where  she  arrives  (or 
starts)  in  her  chariot  are  most  beautifully  modelled.  The 
nudity  of  the  woman,  Plate  172,  is  not  without  a  great  deal  of 
charm,  and  some  of  the  Amazons  are  very  graceful. 

No  one  has  yet  been  able  to  advance  a  theory  which  would 
account  for  these  apparent  incongruities.  The  most  generally 
accepted  suggestion  is  that  the  frieze  was  designed  by  one 
great  artist,  but  that  it  was  executed  by  an  inferior  company 
of  stone-cutters,  some  of  whom,  however,  had  much  skill. 
The  difficulty  with  this  theory  is  that  the  design  itself  shows 
many  of  the  defects  which  the  execution  enhances.  More 
probably,  therefore,  the  origin  of  the  frieze  is  due  to  the  rather 
erratic  genius  of  some  man  intimately  acquainted  with  the  art 
life  of  Greece.  Who  he  was  we  are  unable  to  say. 

PLATE  1  ?4.  Reconstruction  of  a  Part  of  the  Nereid  Monument. 
Second  Frieze,  Stylobate  and  Intercolumniation,  from  Xanthos.  Of 

marble.     British  Museum,  London. 

PLATES   lT5a  and  b  and  m.     Three  Nereids  of  the  Nereid 

Monument  from  XanthOS.  Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London. 
Discovered,  a  few  slabs  of  the  frieze  in  1838  and  1840,  the  rest  in  1842. 
Purchased  by  the  British  Museum  in  1843.  F.  W.,  9131!. ;  Robinson, 
4o8ff.  ;  and  especially  British  Museum  Catalogue  II,  pp.  iff.,  and  com- 
plete bibliography,  pp.  9  and  10.  The  most  important  review  of  the 
theories  as  to  the  date  of  the  building,  Overbeck  I,  197  and  198; 
Furtwangler's  dating  (Arch.  Zeit.,  1882,  p.  359)  in  the  fifth  century 
is  now  almost  universally  accepted. 

1  But  notice  her  very  poor  right  hand.  2  Best  instance  the  extended 
right  hand  of  Amazon,  Overbeck  I,  fig.  13,  east  20.  3Most  of  the 
hands  are  very  clumsy. 


-1 66  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  probably  accurate  restoration  of  the  Nereid  monument, 
Text  Illustration  39,  shows  the  customary  style  of  sepulchral 
structure  '  in  Asia  and  Asia  Minor.  It  is,  however,  unique, 
owing  to  its  rich  decorations  and  its  many  figures  in  the  round 
between  the  columns.  These  figures  have  given  the  name  to 
the  monument,  the  majority  of  them  having  some  kind  of  sea 
animals  at  their  feet  designating  the  sea,  as  the  eagle  in  the 
Nike  of  Paionios  was  used  to  indicate  air.  If  this  explanation 
is  correct  —  and  no  other  has  been  offered  —  the  girls  them- 
selves no  doubt  are  Nereids,  daughters  of  the  Old  Man  of  the 
Sea,  who  was  seen  struggling  with  Herakles,  Plate  39.  Their 
connection  with  a  tomb  is  as  obscure2  as  that  of  the  "  Harpies  " 
on  the  "  Harpy  "  monument,  Plate  53. 

The  date  of  the  building  is  now  generally  conceded  to  be 
the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  The  friezes,^  or  at  least  one  of 
them,  apparently  represent  an  historical  event,  a  battle  in  the 
open,  and  the  capture  of  a  city.  Our  knowledge  of  Lykian 
history  is  too  slight  to  make  us  sure  of  the  event  which  is 
meant  here.  If  we  could  determine  this  point,  we  should 
have  a  date  after  which  the  monument  was  built.  Different 
suggestions  have  been  made,  none,  however,  to  the  universal 
satisfaction  of  scholars,  some  of  whom  still  believe  in  a  fourth 
century  date.  But  they  too  acknowledge  the  affinity  which 
the  preserved  figures  bear  to  the  fifth  century  style.  They  as- 
sume that  it  took  many  years  before  Attic  achievements  made 
themselves  felt  in  Lykia.  Since  this  is  so,  we  may  unhesi- 
tatingly discuss  the  Nereid  monument  in  connection  with  other 

1  A  shrine-like  building  on  a  base  of  considerable  height. 

2  For  a  possible  explanation  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  130  and  131. 

3  There  are  four  friezes,  two  on  the  huge  base,  one  on  the  architrave 
of  the  shrine,  and  one  inside  the  colonnade.     The  architectural  mem- 
ber generally  decorated  with  figures  and  placed  above  the  architrave 
(see  Athena-Nike  temple,  Plate  168)  is  omitted  here. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


167 


fifth  century  works,  unconcerned  about  the  possible  date  when 
it  was  actually  erected. 

Three  of  the  finest  extant  copies  are  shown  on  Plates  175 
and  1 76.  Skipping  easily  across  the  surface  of  the  water, 
these  figures  do  not  seem  to  walk.  Their  motion  is  comparable 
to  the  flight  of  the  Nike  of  Paionios,  Plate  no.  They  are 
graceful  figures,  full  of  harmony  and  rhythm,  using  their 
draperies  to  the  best  advantage.  Their  bodies  alone  could 
never  have  expressed  the  abandon  to  the  joy  of  effortless 
movement  as  well  as  their  fluttering  robes.  The  clinging  gar- 
ment of  the  figure,  Plate  1753,  is  studied  from  the  "  Nike  "  of 
the  Parthenon  pediment,  Plate  139,  even  to  the  point  of  having 
the  wind  carry  off  the  folds  on  one  leg.  The  nobility  of  the 
"  Nike,"  however,  is  lost.  It  was  the  motive  that  interested 
the  sculptor  and  not  the  thought  expressed.  The  folds  be- 
tween the  legs,  strangely  out  of  place  with  so  thin  a  garment, 
are  more  like  those  of  the  "  Iris,"  Plate  138,  and  almost  iden- 
tical with  those  of  the  mother  on  the  Phigaleian  frieze,  Plate 
172.  In  bodily  form  the  other  Nereid,  Plate  i75b,  comes 
even  closer  to  the  "  Iris,"  while  Plate  1 76  almost  gives  one 
the  impression  of  the  Olympian  Nike  freed  from  restraint  and 
given  to  the  thorough  enjoyment  of  her  flight. 

There  is  a  sameness  in  the  execution  of  all  the  Nereids  that 
is  apparent  even  in  these  three  statues,  which  are  the  best  of 
all  that  are  preserved.  In  several  of  the  others  the  poses  are 
almost  identical.  And  yet  they  are  pleasing,  each  one  being 
a  variations,  if  not  a  new  tune,  of  the  general  theme  of  joy  in 
movement. 

The  friezes  are  unlike  anything  noted  on  the  mainlaind  in 
Greece.  Doubtless  the  subjects  were  given,  or  no  artist  would 
have  selected  them,  for  they  are  ill-adapted  to  the  art  of  sculpt- 
ure. This  is  most  especially  true  of  the  deserted  city.1 

1  Excellent  selections   from  the  frieze,  Baumeister,  Denkmdler,  PI. 

XXIV. 


1 68  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

There  is,  however,  much  skill  shown  in  grappling  with  them. 
The  advance  of  the  heavy  armed  men,  Plate  1 74,  is  impres- 
sive. It  suggests  the  irresistible  force  of  a  hoplite  attack. 
The  regiments  of  hoplites  in  antiquity  took  the  place  of  the 
modern  artillery.  The  artist  has  here,  for  the  first  time,  made 
use  of  the  opportunity  that  repetition  offers  when  the  single 
object  would  fail  to  arouse  the  interest  of  the  spectator. 
Another  similar  instance  '  occurs  on  the  smaller  frieze  ;  seven 
men  hurrying  along  to  proffer  their  gifts. 

Several  of  the  other  slabs  carry  definite  reminders  either  of 
the  Parthenon  or  especially  of  the  Athena-Nike  frieze.  An 
exaggerated  use  of  fluttering  draperies  mars  many,  and  few 
would  interest  us  if  they  did  not  contain  touches  that  are 
extremely  human  and  true  to  nature.  The  passion,  however, 
runs  far  less  high,  even  in  the  battle  scenes,  than  on  the  Phi- 
galeian  frieze.  These  people  are  fighting  because  they  have 
to,  if  they  were  not  fighting  they  might  be  friends  ;  in  Phigaleia 
they  fight  and  kill  each  other  because  they  want  to,  for  they 
are  consumed  by  the  passion  of  hatred. 

PLATE  177.  Samples  of  the  Friezes  from  a  Grave  Monument  in 
GyOlbashi  in  Lykia.  Of  poor  Lykian  limestone.  Imperial  Museum, 
Vienna.  Discovered  in  1842,  secured  for  Vienna  in  1881.  The  stand- 
ard publication  of  this  monument  is,  Das  Heroon  von  Gjol-Baschi2 
Trysa  von  Bendorf  und  Niemann  ;  F.  W.,  993!!.;  Robinson,  504. 

The  tomb  which  these  reliefs  once  decorated  was  a  large 


1  Baumeister,  Denkmdler,  PI.  XXIV,  fig.  1224. 

2  The   spelling   Gjol-Baschi   is   the  German   approximation   to   the 
native  sound  of  the  name  of  the  place.     Since  letters  have  a  different 
sound  in  English,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  German  spelling  should 
be  continued  in  English  books.     It  would  be  different  if  Gjol-Baschi, 
thus  spelled,  was  the  actual  name  of  the  place. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


169 


court '  open  to  the  sky  and  surrounded  by  four  tremendous 
walls.  The  reliefs  decorated  the  insides  of  all  four  walls  and 
the  outside  of  the  wall  which  was  pierced  by  the  entrance 
door. 

The  subjects  present  a  large  medley.  Most  of  them  seem 
to  be  taken  from  Greek  mythology,  while  some  doubtless  had 
reference  to  the  exploits  and  to  the  events  in  the  life  of  the 
dead. 

The  date  cannot  be  ascertained  with  accuracy.  Benndorf 2 
has  shown  with  great  probability  that  the  reliefs  were  made  in 
the  last  years  of  the  fifth  century  B.  C.3  They  certainly  con- 
tain many  reminiscenses  of  the  friezes  of  the  Athena-Nike 
temple,  of  Phigaleia,  and  of  other  places. 

The  pictorial  element  in  these  reliefs  is  very  strong,  and 
some  attempts  at  bold  foreshortening  have  even  been  crowned 
with  considerable  success,  notably  in  the  case  of  the  temple 
which  appears  in  the  story  of  the  Leukippides.  The  preser- 
vation of  these  reliefs  is  of  the  poorest,  owing  to  the  extreme 
porousness  of  the  limestone  in  which  they  are  carved,  and 
also  to  the  fact  that  they  have  been  exposed  to  the  open  air 
from  the  very  beginning  through  more  than  two  thousand 
years. 


PLATE  178.  Relief  from  ElCUSiS.  Of  marble.  National  Mu- 
seum, Athens.  Discovered  in  Eleusis  in  1859,  removed  first  to  the 
Theseion,  which  served  as  a  national  museum  until  the  new  building 
was  completed.  Furtwangler,  Denkmiiler,  Handausgabe,  pp.  36-39, 


"The  court  was  about  78  feet  long  by  65  feet  wide,  and  slightly 
irregular  in  shape.  2  GjoI-Baschi,  p.  23iff.  3  Overbeck  II,  p.  207, 
agrees,  but  calls  attention  to  the  draperies  in  the  slabs  representing 
the  hunt  of  the  Kalydonian  Boar,  which  have  a  greater  resemblance  to 
works  of  the  fourth  century  than  to  those  of  any  other  period. 


170 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


who  calls  the  figure  to  the  left  Persephone;  *  F.  W.,  1182,  who  calls 
her  Demeter;  and  Robinson,  96,  who  follows  Wolters.  Older  litera- 
ture in  F.  W.  and  Robinson. 

This  large  relief — the  figures  are  lifesize  —  is  still  awaiting 
identification.  Found  in  Eleusis,  where 'Demeter  and  Perseph- 
one, her  daughter,  were  worshipped,  it,  doubtless,  has  refer- 
ence to  an  incident  in  the  varied  mythology  of  these  goddesses. 
The  veil  of  mystery  that  surrounded  the  Eleusinian  cult  in 
antiquity  has  not  yet  been  lifted,  and  will  probably  never  be 
raised  sufficiently  to  grant  us  a  clear  view  of  what  the  Greeks 
portrayed  as  having  taken  place  there.  In  respect  to  the  boy 
on  this  relief,  we  know  that  two  boys  were  brought  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Eleusinian  goddesses.  One  was  Triptolemos, 
whom  Demeter  chose  as  intermediary  to  teach  her  people  the 
blessings  of  agriculture.  The  other  was  a  peculiar  conception 
of  Dionysos,  the  son  of  Zeus  and  of  Demeter,  by  some  ac- 
counts, or  of  Persephone  by  others.  This  Dionysos  always 
appears  as  a  boy  or  slender  youth,  not  yet  grown  up,  and  is 
known,  from  the  shouts  uttered  at  his  worship,  as  lakchos.2 

Triptolemos,  receiving  the  ears  of  corn,  is  generally  older, 
at  least  on  many  vase  paintings,  where  the  scene  occurs.  Most 
interpreters,  nevertheless,  believe  that  the  marble  relief  repre- 
sents this  incident.  The  goddess  to  the  left  seems  to  be 
handing  something  to  the  boy,  and  the  position  of  her  hands 
renders  it  probable  that  the  gift  was  one  or  more  ears  of 
corn.  The  small  size  of  the  boy  may  be  due  either  to  a  dif- 
ferent reading  of  the  myth  here  followed  from  the  one  we 

1  Persephone  is  the    Latin   Proserpina  or  the    English  Proserpine. 
Persephone  was  the  daughter  of  Demeter  (Mother  Earth)  and,  in  con- 
trast to  the  Mother,  is  often  called  the  Girl,  Kora. 

2  The  literal  similarity  between  this  lakchos  and   the  more   usual 
Bacchos  is  undeniable. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


171 


know,  or  to  an  artistic  license.  The  sculptor  made  Triptole- 
mos  smaller  so  that  he  might  impress  the  spectator  with  the 
size  of  the  goddesses.  There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  with 
this  interpretation.  According  to  the  myth,  Demeter  hands 
the  corn  to  Triptolemos.  She,  therefore,  ought  to  be  the 
figure  to  the  left.  The  other  woman,  not  mentioned  in  the 
story,  must  be  Persephone.  It  happens,  however,  that  we 
should  interpret  the  two  women  in  exactly  the  opposite  way  if 
we  were  not  influenced  by  the  myth.  The  Ionic  garment  was 
going  out  of  use  in  Athens  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
Matrons,  it  seems,  continued  to  wear  it,  as,  for  instance,  the 
Barberini  Hera,  Plate  105  ;  while  younger  women  put  on  the 
Doric  chiton,  which  became  characteristic  of  Athena,  notice 
Athena  Parthenos,  Plates  968".  Another  relief  from  Eleusis,1 
now  in  Paris,  shows  the  two  goddesses,  one  of  whom  holds 
two  ears  of  corn  in  her  hand.  She  must  be  Demeter,  but  she 
is  clad  in  the  Ionic  chiton ;  while  the  other  woman  is  dressed 
in  the  Doric  garment.  Persephone,  moreover,  is  also  known 
as  Kora,2  and  the  Korai  (maidens)  from  the  Erechtheion 
porch  wear  the  identical  costume. 

The  attributes  on  the  Athenian  relief,  scepter  and  torch, 
properly  belong  to  both  goddesses,  and  can,  therefore,  be  of 
no  service  in  the  identification  of  either.  The  woman  back 
of  the  boy  seems  to  be  placing  a  wreath  on  his  head.3  Such 
an  incident  is  not  transmitted  in  the  legend  of  Triptolemos, 
although  it  is,  of  course,  possible  that  the  sculptor  has  in- 
vented it. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  seems  hasty  to  speak  of  a  "  prob- 


1A  picture  of  it  is  given  Baumeister,  Denkmdler,  p.  416,  fig.  457. 
2  See  above,  Note,  p.  155.  3  There  is  a  bore-hole  over  his  forehead 
where  this  wreath  of  bronze  doubtless  was  attached.  The  hair,  which 
it  would  have  hidden,  is  less  well  finished  than  the  rest. 


1 72  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

ably  accurate  interpretation "  of  these  figures  from  left  to 
right  as  Demeter,  Triptolemos  and  Persephone.  On  the  con- 
trary, Demeter  is  the  woman  on  the  right,  unless  —  what  is 
little  likely  —  the  artist  chose  to  represent  her  in  forms  gen- 
erally used  to  characterize  her  daughter ;  Persephone  (Kora, 
the  Maiden),  the  woman  on  the  left;  and  the  boy,  either 
Dionysos  (lakchos),  or  less  probably  Triptolemos. 

The  difficulty  which  one  has  in  distinguishing  in  this  relief 
between  mother  and  daughter  shows  how  far  the  artists  of  this 
period  were  from  character  differentiation,  beyond  the  mere 
expression  of  such  general  themes  as  dignity,  kindness, 
weariness,  and  the  like.  They  had,  on  the  other  hand, 
learned  how  to  design  grand  and  beautiful  compositions. 
The  combination  of  these  three  figures  is  excellent.  Every- 
thing is  arranged  to  make  a  view  of  the  relief  easy  and  pleas- 
ureable.1  The  transition  from  the  tall  Persephone  to  the  boy 
would  be  difficult  in  spite  of  the  connecting  arms  if  it  were 
not  for  the  drooping  curve  of  her  garment  under  her  right 
elbow,  and  the  similarity  of  her  hair 2  to  that  of  the  boy  in 
front  of  her.  The  slender  profile  view  of  the  boy's  body  is 
made  to  appear  less  slim  by  that  part  of  his  garment  which 
hangs  down  from  his  right  shoulder  and  disguises  his  hollow 
back.  This  garment  served  also  another  purpose,  for  it  ren- 
dered easy  the  otherwise  awkward  position  of  the  boy's  right 
arm,  and  was  an  excellent  foil  against  which  to  relieve  the 
nude.  Demeter,  on  the  right,  is  drawn  into  the  group  not 
only  by  the  action  of  her  right  hand,  but  also  by  the  gentle 
droop  of  her  head,  carrying  the  eye  of  the  spectator  down  to 
the  boy,  whose  upward  glance  to  the  goddess  before  him 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  Chap.  VIII,   pp.  6off.,  "  Physical  effort  and 
pleasure  of  looking  at  extended  compositions." 

2  Compare  also  the  hair  of  the  Spinario,  Plate  72. 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  173 

makes  a  quick  transition  to  Persephone  possible.  The  promi- 
nent torch  is  another  important  factor  of  the  design,  without 
which  Demeter  would  be  a  far  less  intimate  part  of  the  group, 
for  by  its  lines,  almost  parallel  to  the  axis  of  the  boy's  body, 
the  eye  of  the  spectator  glides  readily  from  one  figure  to  the 
other. 

The  only  really  insurmountable  difficulty  which  the  artist 
encountered  is  found  in  the  pose  of  Persephone.  She  is  de- 
signed to  stand  like  the  woman  in  Copenhagen,  Plate  77,  with 
the  bent  left  leg  in  advance.  The  slanting  line  of  the  upper 
leg  was  needed  as  a  link  between  her  and  the  boy.  The  many 
heavy  folds  were  necessary  to  ensure  dignified  stability.  How 
to  combine  the  two  elements  gracefully  and  with  apparent 
truth  to  nature  the  artist  did  not  know.  This,  however,  is 
but  a  minor  defect,  and  in  spite  of  it  the  Athenian  relief  is 
one  of  the  best  extant  works  of  ancient  art.  Wolters  says : 
"  There  is  no  other  Greek  work  known  to  us  of  so  eminently 
a  religious  character.  ...  It  is  the  most  beautiful  instance 
of  an  art  founded  on  faith  and  carried  along  by  it." 

PLATE  1 79.    Orpheus,  Eurydikc  and  Hermes.    Relief  of  marble. 

Museum,  Naples.  There  are  two  well-known  replicas,  one  in  Villa 
Albani,  Helbig,  790;  F.  \V.,  1198;  Robinson,  500;  it  has  no  inscrip- 
tions. The  other  in  the  Louvre  with  inscriptions  reading  Amphion, 
Antiopa,  Zetus.  This  inscription  is  modern.  The  Naples  inscriptions 
are  by  some  also  believed  to  be  modern.  For  full  bibliography,  see 
F.  W.,  1198.  The  correspondence  between  the  figures  on  this  relief 
and  some  figures  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  are  pointed  out  by  Pickard, 
A.J.  A.,  1898,  pp.  i669ff. 

Hermes,  who  calls  for  souls  to  bring  them  to  the  lower  world, 
has  appeared.  His  duty  here  is  to  part  the  loving  couple. 
Himself  characterized  by  the  petasos,  the  little  hat  on  his 
back,  he  is  undoubtedly  Hermes,  while  the  man  who  holds  a 


174 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


musical  instrument  in  his  hand  is  believed  to  be  Orpheus,  and 
the  woman  to  be  Eurydike.  So  they  are  designated  by  the 
inscriptions,  but  these  inscriptions  may  be  modern.  Eurydike, 
the  story  goes,  had  died ;  but  Orpheus,  who  had  gone  to  the 
lower  world  in  search  of  her,  had  been  promised  that  she 
would  return  to  him  if  he  refrained  from  turning  around  until 
he  had  reached  the  upper  world.  When  he  came  near  the 
light,  however,  and  did  not  hear  her  follow  him  he  grew 
anxious  and  looked  back,  only  to  see  her,  like  a  shadow,  dis- 
appear from  his  side  into  the  darkness  below. 

This  incident,  most  interpreters  believe,  was  in  the  mind  of 
the  artist,  who  granted  the  couple,  however,  one  last  good-bye 
before  their  final  separation.  Artistic  license  is  elastic,  so  that 
it  is  quite  possible  that  the  sculptor  took  liberties  with  the 
transmitted  story.  Barring,  however,  the  lyre  and  the  foreign 
costume  of  the  man,  there  is  nothing  in  this  relief  that  did 
not  apply  equally  as  well  to  the  parting  of  any  loving  couple. 

With  true  Greek  simplicity,  the  feeling  of  grief  has  been 
stripped  of  its  exaggerated  expression.  The  latter  may  be  sung 
by  the  poet,  but  must  not  be  carved ;  for  it  is  not  pleasant  to 
look  at.  The  incident  of  the  parting  of  the  lovers,  however, 
far  from  losing  any  of  its  pathos,  has  gained  because  the  grief 
is  revealed  to  be  lasting,  and  not  fleeting  like  the  violence  of 
passionate  outbursts. 

The  correspondence  between  these  figures  and  several  fig- 
ures on  the  Parthenon  frieze  has  recently  been  pointed  out 
in  detail,1  and  is  indeed  striking.  Even  the  selvage  edge  on 
the  mantle  of  Hermes  is  characteristic  of  the  work  on  the 
Parthenon  frieze.  The  drapery  of  Orpheus  reminds  one  of 
that  of  the  Berlin  Amazon,  Plate  118. 

1  Pickard  in  article  mentioned  above.  The  correspondence  is 
especially  strong  with  figures  from  the  West  Frieze  on  Plates  146  and 
153,  and  the  first  figure  on  the  East  Frieze. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


'75 


The  combination  of  the  figures,  however,  and  the  design  of 
the  relief  is  original,  and  shows  an  admirable  artistic  temper. 
The  appearance  of  the  relief  was  enhanced  by  color,  which 
added  much,  for  instance,  to  the  legs  of  Orpheus  shod  in 
shoes  which  are  merely  blocked  out  in  the  marble. 

The  left  foot  of  Eurydike  is  rather  awkward.  Its  direction, 
however,  clearly  indicates  whither  Eurydike  was  walking  when 
Hermes  gently  touched  her  wrist  to  take  her  away.  The  end 
of  the  garment  against  which  her  head  is  relieved  is  with  true 
artistic  license  carved  where  it  is  not  intended  to  appear  to  be, 
behind  her  head.  She  had  it  over  her  head  and  had  pulled 
one  end  aside  so  that  Orpheus  could  see  her.  If  the  artist  had 
carved  her  thus  the  spectator  could  not  have  seen  her  face. 
To  avoid  this  the  sculptor  took  liberties  which  remind  one 
of  the  practices  of  Fra  Angelico  and  of  many  Italians,  who 
often  painted  the  halos  not  on  the  heads  of  their  angels,  but 
back  of  them,  or  in  front  of  them  or  to  one  side,  as  the 
arrangement  of  the  composition  demanded. 

PLATE  180.   Hermes  and  the  Nymphs,  or  the  Graces.   Of  marble. 

Museum,  Berlin.     Found,  date   unknown,  on    the  Quirinal  in  Rome. 
Berlin  Catalogue,  No.  709. 

The  Graces  were  originally  nymphs.  They  appear,  three  in 
number,1  on  the  relief  from  Thasos,2  Plate  54,  together  with 
Hermes,  so  that  these  girls  here  may  also  be  Graces  and  not, 
as  is  generally  stated,  nymphs. 

The  studied  variety  in  poses  and  garments  which  the  Tha- 
sian  artist  had  sought  to  attain,  is  here  carried  to  perfection. 
The  beautiful  unconsciousness  of  the  earlier  work,  however,  is 
missing.  The  later  sculptor  has  rested  satisfied  with  weaving 
familiar  types  into  a  pleasing  group,  unmindful  of  the  accruing 

1  For  this  number  see  E.  von  Mach,  p.  135. 

2  Where  they  are  named  in  the  inscription  as  Graces,  Charites. 


xy6  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE, 

inconsistencies.  The  girl  to  the  right  is  dancing.  Her  gar- 
ment shows  this,  and  she  occurs  also  on  a  later  relief  as  a 
dancing  Mainad.1  The  center  figure  is  standing  still,  or  is 
at  best  walking,  in  spite  of  the  wavy  edge  of  her  mantle. 
Her  exaggerated,  almost  unpleasantly  large,  step  compares  ill 
with  the  slow  and  delicate  rhythm  to  which  the  last  girl  is 
moving.  Hermes,  in  a  graceful  pose,  stands  in  front  of  the 
girls.  His  right  arm  reminds  one  of  the  left  arm  of  the  Eleu- 
sinian  Apollo  in  Berlin,  Plate  127,  and  his  general  pose,  which 
is  borrowed  from  the  boy  of  the  West  Frieze  of  the  Parthe- 
non, on  Plate  146,  is  echoed  again  in  a  much  later  work,  the 
Hermes  on  the  column  from  Ephesos,  Plate  217.  He  holds 
his  fair  neighbor  gently  by  the  wrist,  just  as  he  holds  Eurydike, 
Plate  179. 

The  little  figure  to  the  left  is  a  human  being,  distinguished 
from  the  gods  by  his  diminutive  size,  as  is  customary  in  votive 
reliefs.  From  the  opposite  side  the  river  god  Achelaos 2  in  his 
cave  is  watching  the  gods.  Over  him  Pan  was  sitting,  but  his 
figure  is  now  broken  away,  all  but  his  goat's  feet. 

There  is  little  originality  in  this  relief,  which  seems  to  be 
not  a  Roman  copy,  but,  as  the  Pentelic  marble3  indicates,  a 
genuine  Athenian  work  of  the  fifth  century.  It  shows  how 
even  in  that  period  there  were  marked  differences  between  the 
creations  of  the  sculptors.  Some  conceived  mighty  thoughts 
and  appealed  to  the  divine  instincts  of  their  fellow-men. 
Others  borrowed  their  types  and  were  satisfied  with  arranging 
them  skilfully  so  as  to  please  the  refined  taste  of  their  cus- 
tomers. 

PLATE   181.    Medeia  and  the  Daughters  of  Pelias.     Relief  of 

marble,  said  to  be  Pentelic.     Lateran  Museum,  Rome.4     Found,  1814, 

1  See  Plate  219.  2  Achelaos  is  often  represented  in  this  shape.  3It 
seems  to  be  proved  that  the  marble  of  this  relief  is  Pentelic.  4  It 
was  found  necessary,  at  the  last  moment,  to  substitute  the  replica  in 


FIFTH  CENTURY.  !77 

in  the  foundation  of  the  pavement  of  the  old  Academia  de  France 
(Palazzo  Simonetti).  Helbig,  635;  F.  W.,  1200;  Robinson,  503.  A 
replica  of  the  same  in  Berlin,  Catalogue,  No.  927,  where  a  full  bibliog- 
raphy is  given,  to  which  Kekule's  article,  Jahrbuch  XII,  1897,  pp.  96ff., 
must  be  added.  For  an  interesting  vase  painting  depicting  the  same, 
incident,  see  Baumeister,  Denkmaler,  p.  1201,  fig.  1394. 

Medeia,  the  sorceress,  had  told  the  daughters  of  Pelias  that 
she  could  rejuvenate  old  people.  To  show  her  powers  she 
had  bidden  the  girls  to  bring  her  an  old  ram.  This  she  had 
slaughtered,  boiled  in  a  kettle,  and  made  to  re-appear  as  a 
lamb,  as  is  seen  in  the  vase  painting  mentioned  above.  The 
girls  are  persuaded,  and  ready  to  kill  their  father,  trusting 
that  also  he  will  come  out  from  the  cauldron,  by  the  power  of 
Medeia,  a  young  man.  Medeia,  however,  has  no  intention 
of  exerting  her  supernatural  gift.  She  desires  the  death  of 
Pelias. 

On  the  relief  the  preparations  are  made,  Medeia  with  her 
box,  supposed  to  contain  her  herbs  of  youth,  is  seen  on  the 
left,  characterized  as  a  foreigner  by  her  Oriental  garb,  the 
Phrygian  cap  and  the  sleeves  of  her  mantle.  One  daughter  is 
arranging  the  cauldron,  while  the  other  is  given  to  a  moment 
of  thought  before  risking  the  deed  —  the  killing  of  her  father. 
Her  attitude  is  strangely  enough  not  unlike  that r  of  Medeia 
herself  in  an  ancient  wall  painting,  where  she  is  seen  as 
hesitating  before  killing  her  own  children ;  while  on  the  other 


the  Berlin  Museum.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  It  was  in 
the  Palazzo  Strozzi  in  Rome  in  1550,  bought  for  Berlin  in  1842.  Res- 
torations :  the  left  hand,  lower  corner,  with  the  feet  of  Medeia.  The 
entire  relief  has  been  polished,  and  the  branch  in  the  hand  of  the 
right  hand  figure  been  sketched  in  this  process. 

1  See  Springer-Michaelis  I,  p.  173,  fig.  309  ;  Baumeister,  Denkmaler, 
p.  875,  fig.  948. 


1 78  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

hand  it  bears  strong  resemblances  to  several  draped  figures  of 
women  in  the  fifth  century. 

The  pathos  of  the  story  here  enacted  is  stripped  of  all  the 
excitement  that  must  have  accompanied  the  incident  itself. 
It  is  in  this  respect  like  the  Orpheus,  Eurydike  and  Hermes 
relief,  Plate  1 79.  Its  very  successful  arrangement  of  figures 
and  its  distribution  of  masses  is  comparable  to  the  exquisite 
design  of  the  Naples  relief.  Medeia  herself,  moreover,  com- 
pares well  with  the  erect  goddess  on  the  slab  from  Eleusis, 
Plate  178.  The  two  figures  are  similarly  posed,  but  the  atti- 
tude of  Medeia  indicates  greater  skill  on  the  part  of  the  artist, 
who  combined  the  bent  left  leg  and  the  straight  folds  on  the 
right  leg  with  a  more  convincing  verisimilitude  to  nature. 

PLATE  182.  Fragment  Of  a  Horseman.  Of  limestone,  prob- 
ably from  Boiotia.  Vatican  Museum,  Rome.  Date  and  place  of  dis- 
covery unknown.  Brought  to  Italy  with  the  Greek  spoils  of  the  army 
of  Morosini,  in  1687.  It  passed  through  several  collections  until  it  was 
finally  deposited  in  the  Vatican  Museum  under  Pius  VII  (1800-1823). 

The  strong  resemblance  between  this  figure  and  several 
horsemen  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  has  led  people  to  see  in 
it  a  fragment  of  the  Parthenon.  This  view,  however,  is  dis- 
proved by  the  difference  of  the  material,  a  rather  coarse  lime- 
stone, probably  from  Boiotia,  and  also  by  the  difference  in 
technique.  The  relief  of  the  Vatican  horseman  is  about  twice 
as  high.1  More  recently  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  horse- 
man was  part  of  a  grave  relief.  As  such  it  was  to  be  seen  in 
the  strong  light  of  out-of-doors,  for  which  the  low  relief  of 
the  Parthenon  frieze  was  not  adapted.2  The  sculptor,  there- 
fore, borrowed  a  type  of  a  famous  work,  but  executed  it  inde- 

1  Or  deep.  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  39f.,  4iff.  2See  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  4 iff. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


179 


pendently  in  a  technique  demanded  by  the  use  to  which  his 
work  was  to  be  put.  This  gives  one  an  opinion  of  the  Boio- 
tian  ( ?)  sculptor  that  is  by  no  means  low,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  he  borrowed  his  type  and  did  not  invent  it.  The  Greeks, 
apparently,  had  no  conscientious  scruples  against  building  on 
the  achievements  of  their  predecessors,  the  chief  aim  of  all 
artists  being  to  execute  their  motives,  whether  individually 
conceived  or  borrowed,  so  that  they  appeared  to  be  the  best 
adapted  to  the  needs  which  they  were  destined  to  fill. 

PLATE  183.  Votive  Relief  Of  HeraklCS.  Of  marble.  Museum  of 
Fine  Arts,  Boston.  Very  small.  Acquired  with  the  Perkins'  Collec- 
tion. No  further  information  published. 

This  little  relief  is  interesting  as  showing  the  method  in 
ancient  Greece  of  adapting  well-known  types  to  new  uses, 
unmindful  of  how  little  the  new  setting  agreed  with  the  orig- 
inal design.  Votive  reliefs,  as  a  rule,  were  not  made  by  first- 
class  men,  and  this  accounts  for  their  comparatively  low 
standard.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  this  relief  tends  to  fill 
one  with  admiration  for  the  delicate  feeling  for  lines  and  masses 
that  even  the  lesser  sculptors  possessed.  One  finds  no  diffi- 
culty in  surveying  the  design,  which  is  simple,  orderly,  and,  to 
a  certain  extent,  impressive.  The  eye  glides  easily  and  with  a 
sense  of  physical  pleasure  from  one  figure  to  the  other.  Only  a 
more  detailed  study  reveals  the  inappropriateness  of  the  youth 
in  profile.  He  is  leaning  much  too  far  backward.  His  pose 
is  copied  from  the  Parthenon  frieze,1  where  it  served  a  definite 
purpose,  and,  in  its  proper  setting,  passed  unnoticed.  Transi- 
tion had  to  be  made  between  the  rapidly  moving  cavalcade 
and  the  slowly  moving  procession  of  maidens  At  the  critical 

1  See  plates  accompanying  the  Handbook. 


T8o  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

point  several  youths  were  introduced,  bearing  implements  for 
the  sacrifice.  If  they  had  been  represented  walking  straight, 
they  would  have  failed  to  mark  the  necessary  transition. 
They  were  therefore  carved  like  men  checking  the  speed  of 
onward  movement  —  leaning  back.  It  is  these  slanting  lines 
that  break  the  continuity  of  the  formerly  suggested  rapidity, 
and  prepare  the  way  for  the  calm  stateliness  of  the  maidens. 
Taken  from  their  setting  these  youths "  are  unpleasant. 

What  is  true  of  all  of  these  youths  is  especially  true  of  the 
single  adaptation  of  one  of  them  in  the  Boston  votive  offering. 
He  is  undraped,  so  that  his  inaccurate  pose  is  even  more  no- 
ticeable, and,  to  cap  the  climax,  a  cloak  hangs  from  his 
shoulder  in  almost  vertical  lines,  as  if  inviting  one  to  measure 
how  much  the  youth  deviates  from  the  correct  posture  of  a 
normal  man. 

The  figure  of  the  other  man  is  even  less  satisfactory.  He  is 
Herakles,  as  the  lion's  skin  indicates,  and  as  such  has  received 
proportions  of  such  muscular  strength  that  his  body  is  un- 
natural. The  sculptor  has  stooped  to  the  crude  device  of  por- 
traying strength  by  size,  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  the  limits 
that  circumscribe  art  are  narrower  than  those  that  bind  the 
fancy  of  the  mythologist.  The  latter  had  described  Herakles 
as  unnaturally  strong.  To  carve  him  thus  was  not  permitted 
to  the  artist,  at  least  not  so  long  as  he  portrayed  Herakles  as 
a  man  ;  for  a  man's  physical  development  must  be  within  the 
bounds  of  the  naturally  probable. 

The  skin,  doubtless  intended  to  be  the  skin  of  a  lion  —  for 
the  inscription  on  the  altar  refers  to  Herakles — is  copied 
from  the  panther  skin  on  one  of  the  Parthenon  metopes, 
Plate  i6ia.  The  physique  of  both  figures  reminds  one  of 
the  work  of  Polykleitos  (see  Plate  113). 

1  This  is  well  seen  wherever  a  slab  of  these  Parthenon  youths  is 
hung  alone,  as  frequently  happens. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  181 


PART    FIVE. 


Fourth  Century. 

The  once  prevalent  view  that  the  artists  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury before  Christ  despaired  of  equaling  the  achievements  of 
Pheidias  and  therefore  consciously  refrained  from  touching  on 
grand  themes,  preferring  to  excel  only  in  beauty  of  finish,  is 
no  longer  held  by  any  but  the  most  backward  students  of  art. 
If  "  grand  themes  "  had  appealed  to  the  people,  the  artists  of 
the  fourth  century  would  have  executed  them,  little  concerned 
about  borrowing  from  their  predecessors.  The  modern  crav- 
ing for  something  new  did  not  disturb  the  breasts  of  the 
ancients.  Types  were  copied  or  adapted  as  long  as  they 
promised  to  find  favor ;  for  the  Greeks  knew  nothing  of  copy- 
rights and  patents.  Praxiteles  imitated  the  Artemis '  by 
Strongylion,2  and  the  sculptors  of  the  Parthenon  wove  into 
their  design  3  several  well-known  figures. 

The  difference  between  the  sculpture  of  the  fifth  and  of  the 
fourth  centuries  is  not  an  artificial  one  of  the  artists'  own 
making,  but  the  natural  result  of  the  changes  4  that  had  taken 
place  in  Greece.  The  individual,  unknown  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, had  stepped  into  his  rights.  In  front  of  an  indubitably 
fifth  century  work  one  is  inclined  to  ask,  "  What  is  the  nature 

1  For  a  discussion  of  this  Artemis  see  the  review  of  Reinach's  article, 
A.J.  A.,  VII,  1903,  p.  465.  2  Strongylion  was  in  his  prime  about  410 
B.  C.  3See  E.  von  Mach,  p,  218.  4The  changes  are  fully  discussed 
and  explained  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2621!, 


1 82  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  this  god?"  Turning  to  a  statue  of  the  next  period,  one  in- 
quires, "  What  does  he  feel?"  and  adds,  with  deference  to  the 
personal  note  in  this  art,  "  How  do  I  like  him  ?  " 

The  artists,  of  course,  strove  to  create  works  that  should  be 
liked,  and  so  a  change  naturally  took  place  in  the  conception 
of  the  gods.  They  lost  much  of  their  former  impassive 
grandeur  and  assumed  the  appealing  beauty  that  characterizes 
the  fourth  century.  Most  of  them  appeared  in  more  youthful 
forms  than  had  pleased  an  earlier  generation,  a  fact  which 
enables  Waldstein '  to  say  with  some  justification  that  a 
"  general  tendency  to  rejuvenescence  in  the  types  of  the  gods 
marks  the  difference  between  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  of 
Greek  art."  Love,  peace,  hatred,  anguish,  resignation,  —  in 
short,  all  the  human  passions  are  portrayed  in  the  eighty 
years  from  the  turn  of  the  century  to  the  death  of  Alexander. 
The  individual  and  his  feelings  are  the  constant  but  ever  vary- 
ing theme.  If  it  were  not  so,  even  the  wonderful  perfection 
of  finish  and  the  beauty  of  harmonious  designs  could  not  place 
this  art  by  the  side  of  the  creations  of  Pheidias.  But  there  it 
belongs,  not  on  account  of  its  external  refinement,  but  rather 
in  spite  of  it. 

The  Romans  loved  this  period  best  of  any  and  copied  2  more 
statues  of  the  fourth  century  than  of  any  other  period.  In 
their  own  soulless  age,  however,  they  looked  more  for  external 
charm  than  for  inherent  worth,  so  that  most  of  their  copies 
have  preserved  of  the  double  excellence  only  the  former. 
This  must  be  kept  in  mind  if  one  would  do  justice  to  the 
artists  of  the  fourth  century,  whose  work  one  can  study  to-day 
only  by  means  of  late  and  inadequate  copies. 

PLATE  184.    Eirene  and  Ploutos,  after  Kephisodotos.  Of  Pentelic 
1  /.  H.  S.,  XXI,  1901,  p.  31.     2  For  Roman  copies  see  E.  von  Mach. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  183 

marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich.  Date  of  discovery  unknown.  The 
group  appeared  first  in  the  Villa  Albani,  whence  it  was  removed  to 
Paris  by  Napoleon  I.  It  was  purchased  for  Munich  in  1816.  Restora- 
tions :  the  right  arm  and  the  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  also  small  parts 
of  the  drapery  of  Eirene,  the  right  arm,  the  left  foot,  parts  of  the  right 
foot  and  the  neck  of  Ploutos.  The  head  of  Ploutos  is  antique,  but 
does  not  belong  to  the  statue.  The  vase  is  a  mistaken  restoration.  A 
replica  of  the  boy  in  Athens  indicates  a  cornucopia.  Furtwangler, 
Catalogue,  219,  with  full  bibliography;  F.  W.,  1210,  and  the  replica  in 
Athens,  1211 ;  Robinson,  515.  The  head  alone,  Plate  4733- 

The  tenderness  of  the  mother  toward  her  child  is  the  more 
apparent  in  this  group,  as  it  is  simple  and  natural,  and  the 
more  astonishing  as  it  has  been  added  to  the  stern  type  of  an 
earlier  age  by  means  of  only  few  alterations.  The  motive  of 
the  drapery  is  like  that  of  the  Maiden,  Plate  166,  but  in  heavi- 
ness it  resembles  rather  the  garment  of  the  Parthenos,  Plate 
97,  or  of  the  "  Hera,"  Plate  104.  No  better  comparison  can 
be  made  than  between  this  "  Hera  "  and  the  Eirene  group,  if 
one  would  contrast  the  gentleness  of  the  fourth  century  with 
the  stern  grandeur  of  the  preceding  age.1  Nor  can  the  readi- 
ness of  the  later  sculptor  to  borrow  and  to  adapt  earlier  types 
be  more  readily  perceived  than  by  studying  the  drapery  of 
Eirene  together  with  that  of  the  "  Dancers,"  Plate  76,  of  the 
Parthenos,  Plate  97,  of  the  "Hera,"  Plate  104,  and  of  the 
Maiden,  Plate  166.  In  time,  the  Munich  group  is  nearest  to 
the  Erechtheion  Maiden,  but  in  vigor  and  grandeur  of  execu- 
tion it  goes  back  to  the  Pheidian  works.  Even  the  straight 
supporting  fold  from  the  knee  of  the  less  engaged  (right)  leg 
is  copied  from  the  Parthenos. 

The  child  is  unduly  small  and  unnaturally  far  to  one  side. 
The  artist  obviously  feared  to  break  the  lines  of  the  impressive 

1  This  age,  to  be  sure,  had  in  figures  like  the  Apollo,  Plate  70, 
paved  the  way  for  greater  mildness. 


184  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

drapery.1  The  head  does  not  belong  to  the  figure,  while  the 
head  of  the  replica  in  Athens  reveals  unmistakable  signs  of  re- 
semblance to  the  child  in  the  arms  of  Hermes,  Plate  190. 

The  original  of  this  group  was  of  bronze,  erected  in  Athens 
in  honor  of  Eirene  (Peace)  and  her  child  Ploutos  (Wealth). 
In  front  of  the  group  was  an  altar,  on  which  yearly  sacrifices 
were  offered  to  these  deities.  The  maker  of  the  group  was 
Kephisodotos,  which  is  a  name  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
family  of  Praxiteles,  who  himself  was  the  son  of  one  Kephiso- 
dotos. It  used  to  be  believed  that  the  father  of  Praxiteles  and 
the  sculptor  of  Eirene  and  Ploutos  were  identical.  This  view, 
however,  has  few  adherents  to-day,  because  the  style  of  Eirene 
belongs  too  distinctly  to  the  fourth  century,  while  the  father 
of  Praxiteles  must  have  been  in  his  prime  during  the  last  de- 
cades of  the  preceding  century. 

Praxiteles  and  his  School. 

Irrespective  of  the  few  statues  that  can  clearly  be  identified 
with  Praxiteles,  the  name  of  this  sculptor  stands  for  certain 
definite  art  tendencies  which  are  found  in  a  large  number  of 
extant  monuments.  For  the  study  of  ancient  art,  little  is  gained 
by  drawing  a  strong  line  between  the  few  surely  Praxitelean 
works  and  the  many  unidentified  statues  exhibiting  his  style  in 
a  more  or  less  marked  degree.  While  on  the  other  hand,  the 
cause  of  knowledge  is  better  served  by  acknowledging  our  lack 
of  accurate  information  than  by  arbitrarily  increasing  the  cycle 
of  Praxitelean  works  with  brilliant  guesses.  Professor  Klein's 
work  on  Praxiteles  seems  to  err  in  the  latter  direction.  The 
fact  that  a  statue  may  have  been  made  by  a  certain  artist  is  no 

'Contrast  this  group  with  Silenos  and  the  infant  Dionysos,  Plate 
245. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  185 

proof  that  it  actually  was  made  by  him  ;  while  the  absence  of 
a  definite  proof  by  no  means  implies  that  the  statue  ought  to 
be  credited  to  some  one  else.  It  simply  goes  to  show  how 
difficult  it  is  to  be  sure  on  a  point  after  the  lapse  of  two 
millenia. 

The  undoubtedly  Praxitelean  works  are  the  "  Hermes " 
found  in  Olympia,  Plate  190,  the  "  Apollo  Sauroktonos," 
Plates  185  and  186,  and  the  Knidian  Aphrodite,  Plates  198 
and  igga.  Of  these  only  the  Hermes  is  an  original,  the  others 
are  copies.  In  addition,  some  scholars  believe  they  are  able 
to  prove  that  also  the  Mantineian  Base,  Plates  21  off.,  and  the 
Aphrodite  in  the  British  Museum,  Plate  200,  are  by  Praxiteles. 
Of  these  again  only  the  Mantineian  Base  is  an  original. 

As  to  the  majority  of  the  other  statues  grouped  together 
here,  there  is  much  unanimity  on  the  part  of  scholars  in  see- 
ing in  them  works  created  under  the  influence  of,  if  not  in  a 
few  cases  by,  Praxiteles.  Plates  191-193,  three  statues  of 
Hermes,  and  Plate  202,  Venus  Medici,  are  included  in  this 
list  only  for  the  sake  of  comparison  ;  while  Plates  2o8a  and 
2o8b  are  doubtful.  They  have  recently  been  assigned  to 
Lysippos. 

PLATE  185.  "  Apollo  Sauroktonos,"  after  Praxiteles.  Of  mar- 
ble. Vatican,  Rome.  Discovered  in  1777  in  the  Villa  Magnani  on 
the  Palatine  Hill  in  Rome.  Restorations:  practically  the  entire  head, 
except  the  right  side  of  the  face  ;  the  right  forearm  ;  three  fingers  of 
the  left  hand  ;  almost  the  entire  right  leg,  and  the  left  leg  from  below 
the  knee;  part  of  the  tree-trunk  ;  the  upper  part  of  the  lizard  ;  and  the 
plinth.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  269ff. ;  Helbig,  194;  Robinson,  519;  Reinach 
1,239,  i- 

PLATE  186.  "  Apollo  Sauroktonos,"  after  Praxiteles.  Of  mar- 
ble. Louvre,  Paris.  Formerly  in  the  Villa  Borghese.  Restorations : 
the  head,  which  was  broken  from  the  statue,  but  is  said  to  belong  to 
it;  the  right  hand  and  adjoining  part  of  the  right  arm  ;  almost  the  en- 


1 86  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tire  left  arm ;  head  and  neck   of   the  lizard.     The  feet  of  "  Apollo  " 
were  broken,  but  are  antique.     Frohner,  Sculpture  Antique,  No.  70 ; 

E.  von  Mach,  pp.   26gff.,  especially  271;  Reinach    I,  135,  5    and   6; 
Helbig,  749;    F.   W.,  1214;    Reinach  II,ioo,3   (not,  as  F.   W.,  erro- 
neously states,  I,  249,  3).    A  less  accurate  copy  is  in  the  Albertinum  in 
Dresden,  E.  von.  Mach,  Plate  XXVII,  4. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  2T.  "  Apollo  Sauroktonos."  Of  bronze. 
Villa  Albani.  Found,  date  unknown,  in  a  vineyard  below  the  Church 
of  S.  Balbina,  Restorations  :  The  tree  and  the  lizard.  Helbig,  749 ; 

F.  W.,  1214  ;  Reinach  II,  100,  3. 

The  important  points  for  the  study  of  these  statues,  which 
are  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  z6gff.,  are  : 

1.  Complete  bodily  and  mental  rest  portrayed  in  the  lines 
of  the  figure,  and  suggested  by  the  presence  of  the  shy  lizard. 

2.  Mistaken  name  "  Lizard  Killer  "  (Sauroktonos)  for  the 
youth  who  is  absent-mindedly  watching  the  lizard. 

3.  The  curve  in  the  body,  unlike  anything  in  earlier  statues. 
Contrast    it   with    the    "Apollo"    of  Tenea,  Plate    14;  the 
Munich  "Hero,"  Plate  71  ;  and  the  Doryphoros,  Plate  113. 

4.  The  inappropriate  change  in  the  Louvre  copy,  Plate 
1 86,  where  the  tree- trunk  is  drawn  too  close  to  the  body  of 
the  figure.     For  a  still  nearer  trunk  see  the  statue  in  Dresden 
(E.  von  Mach,  Plate  XXVII,  fig.  4). 

PLATE  1ST.  Dionysos,  "  SardanapallOS  ".  Of  marble.  Vatican 
Museum,  Rome.  Discovered  in  1761  in  the  ruins  of  a  villa  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Frascati  in  Italy.  The  only  restorations  are  the  point 
of  the  nose,  the  lips,  the  right  arm,  and  fragments  of  the  drapery. 
Helbig,  327;  F.  W.,  1284  (only  the  bust)  ;  Reinach  I,  382,  7. 

An  inscription  on  the  mantle  of  this  figure  reads,  "  Sardana- 
pallos."  Just  why  this  wrong  inscription  was  placed  there  no 
one  knows.  Helbig  suggests,  "  Some  bo n  vivant  of  the 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  187 

imperial  epoch,  interested  in  Sardanapallos,  whose  refined 
luxury  was  a  proverb  in  antiquity,  may  have  wished  to  possess 
a  portrait  of  him.  This  wish  being  impossible  of  fulfilment, 
either  he  himself  or  some  accommodating  art  dealer  gave  the 
name  of  Sardanapallos  to  a  statue  of  the  bearded  Dionysos, 
who  corresponded  in  many  respects  with  a  luxurious  Oriental 
potentate." 

Scholars  to-day  agree  that  the  Vatican  statue  represents 
Dionysos.  This  god  was  variously  portrayed.  As  an  infant, 
he  was  carried  by  Hermes  to  the  Nymphs,  Plates  190  and  Text 
Illustration  31,  or  held  in  the  arms  of  Silenos,  Plate  245  ;  as  a 
youth  he  appears  in  the  statue  in  Rome,  Plate  2  76,  and  proba- 
bly in  a  bronze  in  Naples,  Plate  194 ;  and  as  bearded,  thought- 
ful, almost  sad  but  benign,  we  see  him  in  the  Vatican  statue 
and  in  the  Naples  head,  Plate  498. 

It  is  this  sadness  of  expression  that  clearly  places  the  Vatican 
statue  in  the  fourth  century,  while  its  supreme  dignity,  and 
pleasing,  not  pathetic  expression,  render  it  impossible  to  as- 
cribe him  to  the  cycles  of  any  other  fourth  century  sculptor 
than  Praxiteles.  Of  this  artist  we  know  '  that  he  portrayed 
Dionysos,  and  although  the  description  of  the  statue  by  him 
does  not  tally  with  the  extant  copy,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  he  did  not  make  other  statues  of  the  same  god. 

Another  suggestion  is  that  the  original  was  by  Kephisodotos, 
the  maker  of  Eirene  and  Ploutos,  Plate  184.  Both  statues  are 
touched  with  sentiment,  both  show  the  love  of  the  artist  for 
the  monumental  effect  of  drapery.  The  folds  of  the  under- 
garment of  Dionysos  are,  however,  so  fussy  that  it  is  difficult  to 
imagine  that  they  should  have  pleased  the  maker  of  Eirene. 
They  remind  one  more  of  the  garment  of  the  Matron  in 
Dresden,  Plate  208. 

1  Overbeck,  S.  Q.,  1222. 


188  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

In  order  to  get  the  full  effect  of  the  drapery  of  Dionysos  it 
is  wise  to  compare  this  statue  with  other  draped  figures,  for 
instance,  the  Hera  Barberini,  Plate  105,  the  Athena  of  Velletri, 
Plate  107,  and  Sophokles,  Plate  412.  A  comparison  with  this 
last  statue  is  especially  valuable  in  revealing  the  devices  by 
means  of  which  the  artist  made  his  Dionysos  appear  to  be  a 
man  of  liberal  proportions.  He  has  thrown  his  cloak  around 
him  so  that  the  folds  hang  from  the  extended  elbow  rather  than 
from  the  side  of  the  body.  This  necessitated  a  peculiar  de- 
viation from  the  natural  in  the  representation  of  the  undergar- 
ment in  order  to  avoid  an  empty  space  and  not  to  give  away 
the  device.  The  width  of  the  garment  below  is  too  great 
to  be  natural. 

The  hair  of  the  head  and  the  beard  of  Dionysos  are  long 
and  beautiful,  but  with  that  peculiar  suggestion  of  voluptuous 
growth  that  is  reflected  in  the  body,  and  that  belongs  properly 
to  Dionysos,  the  god  of  wine  and  easy  living.  In  technique 
the  locks  falling  over  the  left  shoulder  remind  one  of  those  of 
some  of  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  26  and  27.  This  remi- 
niscence of  what  is  old  and  gone  by  adds  to  the  somewhat 
heavy  conception  of  the  god  an  element  of  venerable  dis- 
tinction. 

PLATE  188.  Eros  With  a  BOW.  Of  marble.  Capitoline  Museum, 
Rome.  Place  and  date  of  discovery  unknown,  formerly  in  the  Villa 
d'Este  at  Tivoli.  Restorations :  the  end  of  the  nose,  the  wings  (except 
their  roots),  the  arms  from  below  the  shoulders,  the  right  foot,  the 
lower  left  leg,  the  stump  and  the  quiver.  Helbig,  429;  F.  W.,  1582; 
Reinach  I,  352,  7  ;  compare  also  Reinach  II,  427,  iff. 

PLATE  189.  ErOS  Centocelle.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Found  in  Centocelle  near  Rome,  and  acquired  for  the  Vatican  by  Pope 
Clement  XIV  (1769-1774).  Only  the  point  of  the  nose  and  fragments 
of  the  hair  are  restored.  Helbig,  185  ;  F.  W.,  1578  ;  Reinach  I,  537,  i. 
For  a  fully  restored  replica  in  Naples  see  the  picture  in  Knackfuss- 
Zimmermann,  PI.  193,  fig.  136. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  189 

These  two  statues  of  Eros  have  been  placed  together  for  the 
sake  of  comparison,  although  only  the  second  seems  definitely 
to  belong  to  the  cycle  of  Praxitelean  works.  It  is  probably 
the  copy  of  the  Thespian  Eros  by  that  master.  The  first 
statue  has  been  tentatively  assigned  to  Lysippos,  but  without 
cogent  arguments.  It  may  be  the  adaptation  of  a  type  created 
in  the  time  of  Praxiteles.  Judging  by  gems '  the  restoration 
of  the  bow  is  inaccurate.  Eros  was  endeavoring  to  fasten  the 
string  on  his  bow. 

The  restoration  of  the  Eros  Centocelle  has  given  much  dif- 
ficulty. Wolters  (F.  W.,  1578)  believes  that  he  held  a  torch 
turned  down  in  his  right  hand.  This  was  the  symbol  of  death, 
and  Erotes  are  sometimes  seen  with  it  on  Roman  sarcophagi. 
Helbig,  on  the  contrary,  contends  that  the  right  arm  hung 
loose  by  the  side  of  the  body,  and  that  his  hand  was  empty. 
The  left  arm  may  have  rested  on  a  bow  or  a  pillar.  The  latter 
view  seems  to  be  substantiated  by  a  number  of  replicas,  one  a 
Pompeian  stucco  relief.2  The  actual  appearance  of  the  Thes- 
pian Eros  by  Praxiteles  is  not  recorded.  It  is,  however,  a 
pleasant  supposition  that  the  Centocelle  figure  copies  that 
famous  statue.  This  view  gains  probability,  since  there  are 
many  replicas  extant,  which  would  be  the  case  only  with  a 
famous  original. 

Most  important,  however,  is  the  general  Praxitelean  charac- 
ter 3  of  this  work  —  peace  of  mind  coupled  with  ease  of  pose 
—  and  in  the  lines  of  the  body  a  most  harmonious  rhythm.  It 
is  the  beginning  of  that  rhythm  which  singles  out  the  Hermes 
of  Praxiteles,  Plate  190,  and  the  "  Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195, 
as  works  of  surpassing  beauty.  With  the  legs  of  Eros  gone, 
it  is,  of  course,  difficult  to  feel  the  full  force  of  this  rhythm, 

'Pictures  of  two  gems,  Helbig  I,  p.  316.  2Helbig  I,  p.  119.  3For 
Praxitelean  character  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 


19°  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

but  one  has  only  to  compare  the  Centocelle  figure  with  the 
"  Hermes  "  in  Boston,  Plate  124,  in  order  to  see  that  none  but 
a  supreme  master  could  have  designed  it. 

The  finish  of  the  statue  is  hard,  in  reality  even  harder  than 
the  photograph  reveals.  The  figure,  also,  seems  rather  too 
slight,  but  this  defect  was  counterbalanced  by  the  wings,  now 
lost,  that  were  added  in  the  holes  on  the  back,  and  acted  as 
foils  to  the  slim  body,  enhancing  the  delicacy  of  the  rhythm. 

PLATE  190.  Hermes  Of  Praxiteles.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Olym- 
pia.  Discovered  May  8,  1877,  in  the  ruins  of  the  Heraion,  during  the 
German  excavations  of  Olympia.  Traces  of  color  were  found,  although 
they  have  now  disappeared,  on  the  mouth,  in  the  hair,  and  on  the  san- 
dal (not  reproduced  in  the  plate).  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2jiff;  F.  W., 
1212;  Robinson,  516;  Reinach  II,  173,  i.  See  also  Helbig,  79. 

Pausanias  (V,  17,  3)  mentions  a  Hermes  carrying  the  child 
Dionysos  to  the  nymphs,1  of  marble,  in  the  Heraion  in  Olym- 
pia. It  is,  therefore,  now  generally  accepted  that  the  discov- 
ered statue  is  the  work  of  Praxiteles.2  This  statue  is  fully 
discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2 7 iff.  The  important  points 
are  : 

1.  The  beauty  of  the  surface  finish. 

2.  Its  remarkable  state  of  preservation,  owing  to  a  number 
of  lucky  circumstances. 

3.  Its  inferiority  in  design  to  other  statues  by  Praxiteles, 
of  which,  however,  only  copies  are  extant.     It  was  in  antiquity 
not  mentioned  among  the  great  works  of  the  master. 

4.  The  absent-mindedness  of  Hermes,  who  might  be  called 

1  For  another  treatment  of  this  subject  see  Text  Illustration  No.  31. 

zlt  is  true  that  Pliny,  N.  H.,  34,  87,  credits  the  elder  Kephisodotos 
with  a  statue  of  Hermes  finding  the  infant  Dionysos.  No  place  is 
mentioned. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  19 1 

"  Hermes  the  Dreamer."  It  is  enhanced  by  the  playing  in- 
fant, who  here  takes  the  place  of  the  lizard  in  the  so-called 
Sauroktonos  figures,  Plates  185(1. 

5.  The  expressive  sunny  eyes  and  the  intentionally  less 
beautiful  mouth. 

The  little  Dionysos  is  treated  merely  as  an  accessory,  and  is 
conventional.  He  cannot,  therefore,  be  taken  as  an  illustration 
of  what  the  fourth  century  sculptors  were  able  to  do  in  statues 
of  children.  For  excellent  heads  of  children  see  the  Stele  of 
Kephisodotos,  J.  H.  S.,  XI,  p.  101  (picture),  or  the  head  from 
Paphos,  /.  H.  S.,  IX,  Plate  X.  For  the  motive  of  Hermes 
taking  the  child  Dionysos  to  the  nymphs  '  to  be  nursed,  see  the 
relief,  Text  Illustration  31 ;  for  the  general  motive  of  the  pose 
of  Hermes,  see  the  statues  of  Hermes,  Plates  191-193, 
especially  the  Hermes  of  Andros.  For  possible  copies  of 
Hermes  see  the  torso  in  the  Vatican,  Helbig,  79 ;  Reinach  II, 
173,  2.  Several  small  reproductions,  among  them  a  bronze 
in  the  Louvre,  Reinach  II,  173,  3-8. 

PLATE  191.  Hermes  Of  AndrOS.  Of  marble.  National  Museum, 
Athens.  Discovered  in  1833,  on  the  island  of  Andros,  "in  a  sepulchral 
chamber"  (Wolters),  together  with  the  statue  of  a  woman.  Only  the 
left  leg  from  below  the  knee  to  the  ankle  is  restored.  F.  W.,  1220; 
Robinson,  521  ;  Reinach  II,  149,  10. 

PLATE  192.  Hermes  Belvedere.  Of  Marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Discovered  in  1543  near  the  castle  of  S.  Angelo,  in  Rome,  placed  in 
the  Belvedere  Garden  by  Paul  III  (1534-1549).  Four  toes  of  the  right 
foot  were  restored  in  ancient  times.  The  legs  of  the  statue  were 
broken  when  it  was  found,  and  the  joining  of  the  right  leg  to  the  foot, 
being  poorly  done,  has  given  the  leg  an  unpleasant  curve.  The  statue 
used  to  be  called  "  Antinoos."  Helbig,  145;  Reinach  I,  376,  2  (with 
restored  arms). 

1  Or  in  this  particular  relief  only  one  nymph. 


I92  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  193.  Hermes  Farnese.  Of  Marble.  British  Museum 
London.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  It  was  sold  by  the 
Sassi  family  in  1546  to  the  Farnese  family,  and  was  acquired  from 
them  in  1864  for  the  British  Museum.  Restorations:  left  leg  from 
below  the  knee,  front  part  of  right  foot,  and  most  of  the  wings,  left 
hand,  tip  of  the  nose,  lower  lip  and  chin,  part  of  the  staff  and  of  the 
drapery.  British  Museum  Catalogue,  1599,  with  full  bibliography; 
Reinach  II,  149,  i. 

These  three  statues  are  grouped  together  as  offering  inter- 
esting material  for  comparison  with  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles. 
The  Hermese  Belvedere  and  the  Hermes  Farnese  are  late 
copies.  «The  figure  from  Andros  may  belong  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury and  is,  possibly,  not  intended  to  represent  a  Hermes,  but 
to  be  a  statue  of  the  deceased  in  whose  tomb  it  was  found.1 
The  snake  on  the  tree  trunk  may  designate  the  dead  as  hero, 
while  it  may  also  be  the  attribute  of  Hermes  marking  his  con- 
nection with  the  dead,  whose  souls  it  was  his  duty  to  usher  to 
the  lower  world. 

The  interesting  question  arises  :  Did  Praxiteles  invent  this 
type  of  Hermes,  or  did  he  merely  make  use  of  it  in  his 
Olympian  figure  ?  In  view  of  the  fact  that  he  copied 2  the 
Artemis  of  Strongylion,  the  latter  alternative  is  by  no  means 
impossible.  It  is  even  probable  that  the  type  was  famous 
before  Praxiteles  added  the  little  Dionysos  and  introduced 
into  his  figure  his  own  peculiar  rhythm  ;  3  for  it  is  difficult  to 
imagine  that  a  later  artist  should  have  copied  the  Praxitelean 
Hermes  so  accurately  as  these  three  figures  do,  without  pre- 
serving its  chief  charm,  its  rhymth. 

PLATE  194.  "  Narklssos,"  probably  Dionysos.  Small  statuette 
of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples.  Found  in  1863  in  a  house  of  the 

1  See  the  arguments  F.  W.,  1220.  2  See  A.J.  A.,  VII,  1903,  p.  465. 
3  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  27off. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  193 

seventh  region  in  Pompeii.  The  base  is  restored ;  a  part  of  the 
ancient  base  shows  under  the  right  foot  in  the  profile  view,  indicating 
that  the  statue,  as  now  erected,  tilts  too  far  forward.  F.  Hauser, 
Jahrbuch  IV,  1889;  pp.  H3ff.,  with  pictures  showing  the  mistake 
corrected.  Mau-Kelsey,  pp.  452f. ;  Reinach  II,  1217. 

The  restlessness  of  lines,  at  present  noticeable  in  this  figure, 
is  less  pronounced  when  the  figure  is  tilted  back  until  the 
level  of  its  base  is  parallel  with  the  fragment  of  the  ancient 
base  preserved  under  its  right  foot,  and  when  this  piece  is 
sunk  into  the  level  of  the  floor  on  which  the  figure  is  sup- 
posed to  stand.  But  even  these  changes  do  not  add  that 
element  of  rest  that  one  instinctively  feels  belongs  to  the 
figure.  The  Praxitelean  rhythm  is  unmistakable,  so  that  one 
is  at  once  reminded  of  the  device  of  this  master  of  completing 
the  rhythm  of  his  figures  with  external  additions ;  the  tree 
trunk  in  the  Hermes  and  the  "Sauroktonos,"  Plates  190  and 
185,  the  drapery  on  the  vase  in  the  Knidian  Aphrodite,  Plate 
198,  etc.  In  this  case  a  panther  has  been  suggested,  which 
animal  is  frequent  with  Dionysos,  as,  for  instance,  Plate  219.' 
Rearing  at  the  side  of  Dionysos,  the  panther  supplies  the 
stability  to  the  design  which  now  is  lacking.  It  also  explains 
the  pose  of  the  god,  who  is  playfully  teasing  his  pet. 

Thus  understood,  the  Naples  bronze  resembles  the  "  Sau- 
roktonos." It  is,  however,  much  less  restrained  in  lines,  and, 
therefore,  less  satisfactory  as  a  constant  companion.  If  the 
design  is  by  Praxiteles,  the  "  too-much  "  has  been  added  by 
the  sculptor  who  made  the  reduced  copy.  If  this  is  not  the 
case,  a  later  admirer  of  the  Praxitelean  rhythm  must  be 
credited  with  the  conception  of  the  figure. 

1  The  type  of  Dionysos  has  here,  by  the  addition  of  peculiar  ears, 
been  changed  to  that  of  Satyr  in  the  service  of  Dionysos,  the  god  of 
wine. 


194  GREEK  AMD  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  popular  name  "  Narkissos "  is  wrong.  It  was  based 
on  the  misconception  that  this  boy  of  supreme  beauty  was 
represented  as  watching  the  reflection  of  his  face  in  the  brook 
at  his  feet. 

The  Naples  bronze  never  fails  to  charm  the  observer.  It 
is,  however,  much  over-rated ;  and,  although  extremely  grace- 
ful, has  no  place  at  the  side  of  the  masterpieces  of  Greek 
sculpture 

PLATE  195.  Satyr.  "Marble  Faun."  Of  Marble.  Capitoline 
Museum,  Rome.  Discovered  probably *  in  Hadrian's  Villa  near 
Tivoli,  exact  date  unknown.  It  was  placed  in  the  Capitoline  collec- 
tions by  Pope  Benedictus  XIV  in  1753.  Restorations:  the  nose,  the 
right  fore  arm,  the  flute,  practically  the  entire  left  arm,  the  right  foot, 
parts  of  the  toes  of  the  left  foot,  a  few  fragments  of  the  panther  skin 
and  the  plinth.  Helbig,  525  ;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  267!?. ;  Robinson,  517  ; 
Reinach  I,  401,  4  ;  Overbeck  II,  p.  77,  note  59,  with  complete  bibliog- 
raphy. The  name  "  Marble  Faun  "  was  given  to  the  statue  by  Haw- 
thorne, who  based  on  it  one  of  his  best-known  novels.  For  numerous 
replicas  see  Reinach  II,  I34ff.  An  Artemis  from  Mytelene,  now  in 
Constantinople,  is  doubtless  inspired  by  this  type,  A.  J.  A.,  I, 
Plate  IX. 

PLATE  196.    Torso  of  a  Satyr,  Replica  of  Plate  195.    Of  Marble. 

Louvre,  Paris.  Discovered  on  the  Palatine  in  Rome  during  excava- 
tions conducted  there  by  Napoleon  III,  between  1861  and  1865. 
E.  von  Mach,  p.  268;  Robinson,  518;  Reinach  II,  135,  i. 

These  statues  have  been  assigned  to  Praxiteles  on  internal 
evidence.  We  know  of  no  other  sculptor  whose  style  2  is  so 

1  Robinson,  No.  517,  gives  the  place  of  discovery,  without  citing  his 
authority,  as  the  site  of  a  villa  of  Antoninus  Pius,  and  the  date  as 
1701.  2The  suggestion  that  these  statues  and  their  numerous  replicas 
are  copies  of  a  painting,  the  "  Resting  Satyr,"  by  Protogenes,  has 
found  little  favor. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  195 

completely  reflected  in  them  as  that  of  this  master.  Satyr 
statues,  moreover,1  were  favorites  with  him,  one  of  which 
received  in  antiquity  the  name  of  the  "  world-famed."  The 
extant  statues  cannot  be  identified  with  any  of  the  three 
satyrs  described  in  literature.  There  is,  however,  no  objection 
to  assuming  that  Praxiteles  made  more  Satyr  statues  than  the 
three  whose  names  have  been  recorded.  This  view  seems 
especially  correct  because  the  surface  modelling  of  the  excel- 
lent torso  in  the  Louvre  resembles  that  of  the  Hermes, 
Plate  190. 

These  statues  are  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  266ff. 
The  essential  points  are  : 

1 .  The  motive  ;  a  boy  at  rest  and  yet  on  the  alert. 

2.  The  well-disguised  identity  of  the  little  fellow's  race, 
until  one  notices  his  ears. 

3.  The  telling  use  made  in  the  original,  probably  of  bronze, 
of  the  long  tail  of  the  panther  skin,  a  motive  not  reproduced 
in  the  best  marble  copies,   but  retained  in  the  Satyr  in  the 
Vatican  (E.  von  Mach,  Plate   XXVII,    Fig.  3).     The   Satyr 
played  absent-mindedly  with  this  tail,  swinging  it  to  and  fro. 
The  suggested  movement  enhanced  the  stillness  of  the  boy, 
just  as  the  lizard  had  done  in  the  case  of  the  "  Sauroktonos," 
Plate  185,  and  the  little  Dionysos  with  Hermes,  Plate  190. 

4.  The  beauty  of  finish  of  the  Louvre  torso,  which,  how- 
ever, for  several  reasons,  cannot  be  the  original.2 

PLATE  W.    Satyr  Pouring:  Wine.    Of  Marble.    Museo   delle 
Terme,  Rome ;   formerly    Museo    Bon    Campagni-Ludovisi.     Restora- 

1  Robinson  correctly  mentions  three.     Of  these,  one  was  in  Rome, 
he  says,  according  to   Pliny.     He  gets  his  authority,  doubtless,  from 
Pliny,  N.  H..  34,  69,  but  Pliny  mentions  no  place  for  the  satyr. 

2  This  view  was  held  by  Brunn,  Deutsche   Rundschau,  VIII,  1882, 
p.  200. 


1 96  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tions  :  raised  right  arm,  left  lower  arm,  elbow,  part  of  the  drinking 
horn,  and  various  less  important  parts.  Th.  Schreiber,  71;  Helbig 
88 1 ;  Reinach  II,  139,  7.  For  several  replicas  see  Th.  Schreiber,  71  and 
Reinach  II,  139,  5. 

Of  this,  as  of  the  other  Satyr,  Plates  195,  196,  numerous 
copies  exist,  showing  that  the  original  was  very  famous.  One 
of  the  best  replicas  is  in  Dresden.1  The  attempt  to  identify2 
this  statue  with  one  of  the  Praxitelean  Satyrs  known  from 
literature  has  failed.  The  reasons  for  assigning  it  to  the  cycle 
of  Praxiteles  are  the  same  as  those  advanced  in  the  discussion 
of  Plates  195,  196,  but  they  are  less  cogent,  the  characteristic 
rhythm  of  that  master  being  less  in  evidence  here  than  in  the 
other  figures.  There  is,  however,  enough  of  the  style  of 
Praxiteles  in  the  statue  to  make  one  admit  the  possibility  of 
its  origin  in  his  studio. 

PLATE    198.    Aphrodite,   copy   of  the   Knidian   Aphrodite  of 

Praxiteles.  Of  Marble,  above  life  size.  Vatican,  Rome.  There  is 
much  confusion  concerning  the  date  of  discovery  and  the  addition  of 
a  tin  drapery  to  this  figure.  The  facts,  as  set  forth  by  Michaelis, 
J.  H.  S.t  VIII,  1887,  pp.  324-355,  are :  one  copy  was  in  the  Vatican  in 
the  reign  of  Pope  Julius  II  (1503-1513),  another  was  added  under 
Clement  VII  (1523-1 534).*  In  the  eighteenth  century,  from  motives 
of  propriety,  a  tin  garment  was  ordered  made  for  the  best  of  the  two 
statues.  The  garment  was,  however,  added,  either  intentionally  or 
by  mistake,  to  the  inferior  copy.  The  wave  of  puritanic  morals  having 
subsided  for  a  time,  nothing  was  done  to  the  better  statue.  Pope 
Gregory  XVI  (1831-1846)  finally  issued  the  order  to  banish  from  his 
galleries  all  statues  of  nude  women,  which  relegated  the  best  extant 
copy  of  the  Knidian  Aphrodite  to  the  magazines  of  the  Vatican,  where 
it  was  last  seen  by  Feuerbach  in  1839.  The  tin  garment  has  been  only 

1  Reinach  II,  139,  5  and  6.  2  See  the  discussion,  F.  W.,  1217,  note 
on  page  421.  3  A  third  was  bought  for  the  new  Museo  Pio  Clementino, 
rebuilt  by  Popes  Clement  XIV  and  Pius  VI  (1769-1799). 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  197 

once  removed  by  permission  of  the  late  Pope  Leo  XIII,  for  the  making 
of  a  cast  and  of  one  illustration.  The  restorations  of  the  Vatican 
figure  are  the  front  of  the  nose,  the  throat,  the  right  fore  arm,  most  of 
the  left  arm,  the  support  of  the  hydra,  and  most  of  the  lower  part  of 
the  legs.  Helbig,  316;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  276ff.;  Robinson  (supple- 
ment) 545a  ;  Reinach  II,  356,  8.  For  coins  representing  the  statue  see 
Overbeck  II,  p.  46,  figs.  150-1. 

PLATE  199a.  The  Same,  with  the  Metal  Garment,  as  she  ap- 
pears in  the  Vatican  Museum. 

The  head  of  the  statue  is  antique.  "  It  cannot,  however, 
belong  to  the  same  replica  of  the  body,"  and  has  received  a 
slightly  inaccurate  turn  in  the  restoration  of  the  neck.  The 
statue  is  fully  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  276ff.  The  im- 
portant points  are  : 

1.  The  statue  copies  the  work  of  Praxiteles    which  was 
the  most  famous  in  antiquity. 

2.  The  finish  is  hard  and  preserves  little  of  the  delicacy  of 
modelling,  which  was  the  chief  charm  of  the  original. 

3.  The  drapery,  ready  to  drop  from  the  hand  of  the  god- 
dess, is  especially  poor.     For  a  good   piece   of  drapery  see 
Plates  217  and  218. 

4.  The  drapery  serves  as  the  "  material "  support  of  the 
statue,  but  originally  did  not  appear  to  be  a  support  at  all. 

5.  The  gesture  of  the  right  arm  is  unconscious,  "  and  is 
prompted    by   no   thought   of  any    unauthorized   beholder." 
Contrast  this  with  the  "  Venus  Medici,"  Plate  202. 

6.  The  most  beautiful   replica  of  the  head  of  this  statue  is 
in  Berlin,  see  E.  von  Mach,  Plates  XXXIX,  fig.   i   and  XL, 

fig-  3- 

It  used  to  be  believed  that  the  nude  figures  of  women  in 
Greek  art  were  an  importation  from  the  East,  and  that  the  best 
of  the  Greek  genius  revolted  against  them.  The  fallacy  of  this 


ig8  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

view  has  been  recently  proved  by  S.  Reinach.1  Nude  women 
were  carved  in  Greece  (see  Plate  6)  in  very  early  times,  while 
in  the  Orient  they  are  importations  and  not  native.  It  is  to  the 
credit  of  the  best  Greek  sculptors  that  they  refrained  from 
carving  nude  women,  (although  the  idea  itself  was  not  re- 
pugnant to  their  countrymen) ,  until  they  had  gained  sufficient 
mastery  over  the  problems  that  these  motives  entailed  to 
enable  them  to  create  works  of  such  beauty  that  even  the 
fastidious  modern  taste  cannot  fail  to  admire  them. 

PLATE  199b.  Aphrodite.  Of  marble.  Slightly  below  life  size. 
Glyptothek,  Munich.  Found,  date  unknown,  near  the  ancient  harbor, 
Fiumicino  in  Italy,  later  in  the  Braschi  palace,  and  since  1811  in 
Munich.  The  head  was  broken,  but  is  antique  and  belongs  to  the 
statue ;  only  part  of  the  hair  in  the  back  is  restored.  Other  restor- 
ations :  the  right  fore  arm,  the  left  arm  below  the  bracelet  (but  the 
hand  is  antique  except  the  fingers),  the  right  lower  leg  and  both  feet. 
Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  258  ;  Reinach  I,  331-5. 

This  statue  is  undoubtedly  an  adaptation  of  the  Aphrodite 
of  Knidos  type,  Plate  198.  The  artist,  however,  has  made 
one  important  change,  and  one  that  has  altered  the  whole 
appearance  of  the  statue.  Instead  of  dropping  the  garment 
on  the  vase,  the  goddess  is  pulling  it  towards  her,  as  if  anxious 
to  hide  herself  from  the  gaze  of  an  unwelcome  visitor.  This 
adds  an  element  of  self-consciousness,  out  of  place  with  the 
Praxitelean  motive,  and  not  in  keeping  with  the  accurately 
copied  forms  of  the  body. 

The  reasons  which  induced  the  sculptor  to  make  this  change 
are  easy  to  understand.  He  desired  an  immediate  and  more 
substantial  material  support  for  his  figure.  This  brought  the 
drapery  closer  to  the  side  of  the  body  of  Aphrodite,  and  thus 

1  Rev.  Arch.  XXVI,  1895,  PP-  367~394- 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  199 

lessened  the  risk  of  erecting  a  heavy  marble  figure  on  two 
comparatively  thin  legs,  of  which  one,  moreover,  bent  in  the 
knee,  could  be  of  little  assistance.  It  also  made  the  motive  of 
dropping  the  drapery  impossible,  because  this  would  have 
required  its  falling  in  vertical  folds.  The  sculptor  doubtless 
was  further  influenced  in  making  the  change  by  the  difficulty 
of  carving  the  drapery,  which  as  support  had  an  upward  ten- 
dency, in  a  fashion  that  it  appeared  to  be  falling  down. 

The  finish  of  the  body  of  this  statue  is  superior  to  any 
known  copy  of  the  Knidian  goddess.  The  breast  is,  perhaps, 
carved  with  too  much  pronounced  attention  to  the  charms  of  a 
woman,  but  in  all  other  respects  this  figure  stands  in  strong 
contrast  to  the  later  Aphrodite  statues,  Plate  201,  and 
especially  Plate  202. 

PLATE  200.  Aphrodite.  Bronze  statuette.  British  Museum.  Lon- 
don. Acquired  from  the  Pourtales  collection  in  1865.  Restorations: 
the  feet  and  the  left  hand.  Catalogue  of  the  bronzes  in  the  British 
Museum,  No.  1084;  Klein,  Praxiteles,  pp.  286ff.,  and  figures  48-50; 
also  Praxitelische  Studien,  frontispiece,  and  pp.  6off. ;  Reinach  II,  341, 
4,  and  343,  10.  Compare  also  Collection  Auguste  Dutuit,  Plate  XVIII. 

The  graceful  pose  of  this  statuette  and  its  exquisitely 
rhythmical  disposition  of  masses  has  led  Klein  to  identify  it 
with  an  Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles.  He  calls  her  "  Pseliou- 
mene,"  that  is,  "  putting  on  a  necklace " ;  others  call  her 
"  Anadyomene,"  that  is,  "  rising  from  the  sea,"  a  name  which 
is  little  appropriate  to  this  particular  statuette,  but  seems  to 
agree  with  other  replicas,  where  the  hair  hangs  loose  and  is 
held  by  the  hands  as  if  in  the  act  of  drying  it.  An  interesting 
copy  is  the  bronze  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Auguste  Dutuit, 
where  the  hair  on  the  top  of  the  head  is  fully  dressed,  while  the 
side  strands  are  playfully  passed  through  the  hands. 

It  is  impossible  to  decide  for  which  one  of  these  motives 


200  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  type  of  this  statuette  was  first  designed.     It  is  probably 
inspired  by  Praxiteles. 

PLATE  201.  Aphrodite,  "  Capitoline  Venus."  Of  marble.  Capi- 
toline  Museum,  Rome.  Probably  identical  with  the  statue  found  in  the 
pontificate  of  Clement  X  (1670-1676)  in  Rome.  Benedict  XIV  removed 
it  to  the  Capitoline  Museum  in  1752.  Helbig  says  that  he,  "is  unable 
to  trace  the  source  of  the  statement,  repeated  in  various  handbooks, 
that  the  statue  was  found  walled  up,  like  a  treasure."  The  remarkable 
state  of  preservation  of  the  statue,  however, —  only  the  point  of  the 
nose  and  parts  of  the  hands  being  restored,  —  argues  in  favor  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  story.  Helbig,  458;  F.  W.,  1459;  Reinach  I,  333,  i 
and  2. 

PLATE  202.  Aphrodite,  "  Venus  del  Medici."  Of  marble.  Be- 
low life-size.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence.  Date  and  place  of  discovery 
unknown.  Owned  by  the  della  Valle  family  before  1584,  when  it  came 
into  the  possession  of  the  Medici  family.  In  1677  it  was  taken  to 
Florence.  Restorations :  point  of  the  nose,  the  fingers  of  the  left  hand, 
fragments  of  the  breast  and  of  the  thighs,  and  parts  of  the  dolphin  and 
the  Erotes.  The  front  of  the  base  with  the  name  of  the  sculptor 
Kleomenes  is  modern.  Amelung,  67;  F.  W.,  1460;  Reinach  I,  328, 
4-6. 

Both  statues  belong  to  a  later  period.  They  are,  however, 
inspired  by  the  work  of  Praxiteles,  and  are  best  appreciated 
when  compared  with  the  Knidian  goddess,  Plate  198. 

The  Capitoline  Aphrodite  has  completed  the  action  sug- 
gested by  the  Knidian.  She  has  dropped  her  garment  and 
stands  entirely  nude.  Her  delicacy,  however,  shrinks  from  this 
idea ;  and  the  element  of  self-consciousness  is  introduced,  for- 
eign to  the  work  of  Praxiteles.  It  causes  slight  changes  in  the 
attitude  of  the  goddess  and  in  the  disposition  of  her  arms, 
changes  which  are  designed  to  set  off  to  the  best  advantage 
the  charms  of  her  divine  body.  This  body  is  the  only  claim 
she  has  on  divinity  ;  for,  unlike  the  Knidian  Aphrodite,  she  im- 
presses one  as  supremely  human.  This  may  be  largely  due  to 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  2OI 

the  realistic  modelling  of  her  body,  suggestive  throughout  of  a 
living  model. 

Deferring  to  the  taste  of  a  later  age,  possibly  the  third  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  the  simple  hairdress  of  the  Knidian  Aphro- 
dite has  been  replaced  by  a  more  picturesque  design,  and  a 
fringe  has  been  added  to  the  shawl. 

In  the  Medici  Aphrodite  even  the  shawl  has  disappeared. 
A  dolphin  has  taken  its  place.  No  longer  ready  for  a  bath, 
this  figure  is  thought  of  as  Aphrodite  risen  from  the  sea.  But 
even  more  than  the  Capitoline  figure,  this  woman  is  a  goddess 
only  in  name.  The  last  vestige  of  delicately  shrinking  from 
the  idea  of  being  nude  has  gone,  and  the  "  Venus  Medici " 
stands  before  one  fully  conscious  of  the  charms  which  she  re- 
veals. She  lacks  the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  the  Knidian 
goddess,  and  the  nobility  and  womanly  delicacy  of  the  Capi- 
toline Aphrodite ;  but  what  she  lacks  ought  not  to  blind  one 
against  what  she  possesses  in  the  highest  degree  —  physical 
charm. 

She  is  the  youngest  of  all  known  statues  of  Aphrodite,  and 
she  is  small.  Her  physique  is  not  built  on  the  grand  scale  of 
the  Knidian  goddess,  but  her  luxurious  development  is  pro- 
nounced. Granting  the  artist  the  right  of  portraying  the  mo- 
tive he  has  chosen,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  have 
created  a  lovelier  figure.  The  head  of  the  statue  is  treated 
with  less  care.  It  is  only  a  copy.  A  better  example  of  the 
same  type,  showing  a  closer  connection  with  Praxiteles,  is  the 
Aphrodite  head  in  the  Petworth  collection  in  England.1 

PLATE  203.  Aphrodite  of  ArkS.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Discovered  in  1651  in  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  theatre  in  Aries,  pre- 

1  For  pictures  of  the  Petworth  head  see  Amelung,  figs.  9  and  10, 
facing  page  47,  after  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces. 


202  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

sented  in  1683  to  Louis  XIV,  who  placed  her  in  the  galleries  of  Ver- 
sailles in  1685.  She  eventually  was  transferred  to  the  Louvre.  Re- 
storations :  the  tip  of  the  nose,  part  of  the  hair  ribbon,  the  right  arm, 
the  left  fore  arm,  both  hands,  numerous  fragments  of  the  drapery,  and 
the  big  toe  of  the  right  foot.  Frohner,  137;  Reinach  I,  173,  5. 
Several  replicas  of  the  statue,  although  less  well-preserved,  are  in  ex- 
istence. One  is  in  the  British  Museum,  another  is  in  the  Louvre. 
Rev.  Arch.  XL,  1902,  Plate  XII.  See  also  A.  J.  A.,  VII,  1903,  p.  466. 

Various  restorations  have  been  proposed  for  this  statue. 
Some  scholars  make  of  her  a  "  Venus  Victrix,"  giving  her  the 
spear  in  her  right  hand,  and  a  helmet  to  be  carried  in  her  left 
hand,1  similar  to  the  correct  restoration  of  the  Lemnian 
Athena,  Plate  95.  Others  supply  her  with  a  mirror  and  be- 
lieve that  the  right  arm  ought  to  be  bent,  so  that  the  hand  is 
arranging  the  hair.  This  latter  view  is  more  in  keeping  with 
the  general  idea  expressed  by  the  figure.  Its  calm  grace,  and 
also  its  absent-minded  application  to  some  unimportant  occu- 
pation, agree  with  the  tendencies  of  Praxiteles.  The  seductive 
ease  of  its  rhythm  is  best  appreciated  when  it  is  compared 
with  statues  like  the  Hera  Barberini,  Plate  105.  The  full  gar- 
ment, covering  the  lower  part  of  the  figure,  is  in  strong  con- 
trast to  the  diminutive  shawl  shrouding  the  Aphrodite  of 
Melos,  Plates  291  and  2923. 

PLATE  204.  Aphrodite.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Syracuse.  Dis- 
covered in  1804  in  a  garden  in  Syracuse.  The  little  blocks  on  the 
breast  served  to  support  the  right  arm.  F.  W.,  1469;  Reinach  I, 
326>  7- 

Decoratively,  this  is  one  of  the  most  impressive  Aphrodite 
statues,  her  drapery  serving  as  an  excellent  foil  to  the  beauty 
of  her  body.  The  surface  finish  is  exquisite,  and,  in  fact,  far 
too  delicate  to  be  appreciated  in  a  photograph. 

1  She  is  thus  portrayed,  Reinach  I,  173,  2. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  203 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  figure  with  the  Capitoline 
and  the  Medici  Aphrodite  statues.  Like  them  she  owes  her 
immediate  origin  to  a  later  period,  but  is  no  doubt  inspired 
by  Praxiteles. 

PLATE  205.  Artemis.  Statuette.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Vienna. 
Discovered  in  1880  in  Cyprus.  Acquired  for  Vienna  in  1884.  When 
first  discovered  the  end  of  the  right  arm,  holding  a  torch,  is  said  to 
have  been  extant.  Jahrbuch  der  Kunstrammlungen  V,  1885,  Plates  i 
and  2;  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  1887,  Part  I,  pp.  332ff. ;  Arch.  Zeit., 
1881,  Plate  XVII,  i  ;  Reinach  II,  318,  9.  The  little  statue  on  which 
Artemis  leans  is  said  to  be  another  type  of  the  same  goddess :  compare 
the  statue  of  Aphrodite,  Reinach  I,  341,  4.  There  is  no  marble  on  the 
island,  so  the  statuette  must  be  imported. 

Furtwangler's  attribution  of  this  figure  to  Praxiteles  seems 
convincing  if  understood  to  mean  based  on  his  style.  The 
figure  is  far  too  weak  to  be  an  original  by  Praxiteles,  or  an 
immediate  copy  of  one  of  his  works.  In  general  design,  it  re- 
minds one  of  the  "Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195,  without  exhibit- 
ing the  same  graceful  rhythm.  It  also  resembles  an  inferior, 
painted  statuette  of  Aphrodite  from  Pompeii,1  both  figures  hav- 
ing in  common  the  little  idol  on  which  they  lean,  and  which 
is  a  copy  of  the  archaic  type  of  draped  women,  as  it  appeared 
in  the  majority  of  the  Akropolis  figures,  Plates  256°.  A  similar 
figure  occurs  in  the  Ildefonso  group,  Plate  324. 

PLATE  206.  ArtemiS-Tyche  Or  ISlS-Tyche.  Of  marble.  Glypto- 
thek,  Munich.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Acquired  for 
Munich  in  1812  from  the  collection  in  the  palace  Braschi,  from  which 
also  the  Aphrodite,  Plate  iggb,  was  procured.  The  restorations  were 
made  by  Thorwaldsen.  They  include  the  head  and  neck  and  practically 
both  arms,  with  their  attributes.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  227  ;  Reinach 
I,  221,  3.  Compare  the  statues  of  Artemis  (No.  60)  in  Berlin,  and  of 

1  See  Baumeister,  Plate  XLVII. 


204  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Isis  with  Harpokrates  (No.  6oa,  ibidem,  not  mentioned  in  the  official 
Berlin  Catalogue'). 

The  probably  correctly '  restored  cornucopia  designates  this 
goddess  as  either  Tyche  or  Isis.  The  attribute  in  her  right 
hand  ought  to  be  either  the  rudder  for  Tyche  or  the  snake  for 
Isis.  But  whatever  the  name  of  this  goddess  is,  the  type  of 
the  statue  was  not  invented  for  her,  but  for  Artemis,  as  is 
clearly  shown  by  the  quiver  strap,  which  the  adaptation  has 
retained  as  offering  a  pleasing  motive,  although  it  was  out  of 
place  in  statues  of  either  Tyche  or  Isis.  The  original  from 
which  the  type  is  taken  is  lost,  but  Furtwangler  argues  con- 
vincingly that  it  was  by  Praxiteles.  The  design  of  the  drapery 
and  the  pose  of  the*  figure  certainly  do  credit  to  that  master. 

Perhaps  the  most  famous  Artemis  statue  to-day  is  the 
Artemis  of  Versailles,  Plate  296.  Hers  is  a  short  garment,  but 
probably  only  in  appearance.  One  of  the  charms  of  a  Greek 
dress  is  that  it  can  be  shortened  at  will  by  pulling  it  over  a 
girdle.  This  girdle  is  often  concealed  under  the  bib.2  With 
the  bow  in  her  right  hand  and  her  left  hand  reaching  for  an 
arrow  from  the  quiver,  the  Praxitelean  Artemis  was  practically 
ready  to  go  hunting,  like  her  sister  from  Versailles.  All  she 
needed  to  do  was  to  add  a  shawl  and  to  pull  her  garment  over 
the  girdle,  which  must  be  supposed  to  encircle  her  waist  below 
the  upper  part  of  her  dress. 

The  appearance  of  the  original  Artemis  is  retained  in  an 
inferior  copy  in  Berlin,  No.  60,  while  the  changes  that  were 
necessary  to  approximate  the  Artemis  of  Versailles  are  clearly 
visible  in  another  Berlin  statue  of  Artemis,  No.  63. 

PLATE    20f.      Artemis   Of    Gabii.      Of    marble.     Louvre,   Paris. 

1  See  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  p.  220.  2For  Greek  garments  see  the 
discussion  to  Plate  76. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  205 

Found  in  1792  in  the  ruins  of  Gabii,  later  in  the  Villa  Borghese,  and 
finally  brought  to  Paris  by  Napoleon  I.  The  head  is  antique,  but  was 
broken  when  the  statue  was  found.  Restorations :  the  nose,  part  of 
the  left  ear,  the  right  hand,  the  left  hand  and  part  of  the  mantle  which 
it  holds,  the  left  elbow,  the  lower  left  leg  and  foot,  and  the  front  half 
of  the  right  foot.  Frohner,  97 ;  Reinach  I,  144,  2-4.  See  also 
A.  J.  A.,  II,  1898,  pp.  3671!.,  and  Studniszka  Vermutungen  z.  Griechi- 
ichen  Kunstgeschichte,  p.  25. 

The  best  description  of  this  statue  is  given  by  Frohner  as 
follows  : '  "  Nothing  could  be  more  graceful  than  her  simple, 
easy  pose,  the  attitude  of  a  maiden  goddess  finishing  her 
toilet.  Her  head,  turned  to  the  right,  is  carved  with  inimita- 
ble refinement.  The  delicate,  half-parted  lips  recall  the 
praises  which  the  ancients  lavishly  bestowed  on  the  statues  of 
Artemis  by  Praxiteles.2  With  exquisite  feeling  the  artist  has 
enlivened  his  composition  by  well  chosen  bits  of  contrast.  On 
one  side  one  sees  the  rounded  contours  of  the  raised  arm,  the 
shoulder  hidden  by  the  drapery,  the  straight  folds  of  the  belted 
garment  and  the  leg  which  supports  the  weight  of  the  body. 
On  the  other  side  the  shoulder  is  bare,  the  arm  is  pressed 
against  the  breast,  the  heavy  folds  of  the  cloak  descend  to  be- 
low the  knee,  and  the  left  leg  is  bent  and  set  back.  This  subt- 
lety of  pose  and  movement,  combined  with  the  beautiful 
conception  and  perfect  execution,  make  of  the  statue  a  work 
of  supreme  charm  and  dignity." 

Little  need  be  added  to  this  eloquent  description.  Frohner 
dated  the  statue  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great ;  modern 
scholars  feel  inclined  to  assign  it  more  definitely  to  Praxiteles. 
The  writer  himself  doubts  the  accuracy  of  this  attribution. 
The  grace  and  beauty  of  the  statue  seem  to  him  too  studied 


'Translation  from  Frohner,  p.  121.     2  Compare  Petronius,  chapter 
126. 


206  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

in  effect  to  be  by  Praxiteles.  They  compel  attention,  and  this 
was  not  the  way  that  master  worked.  Possibly  they  are  due 
to  the  copyist  or  adapter.  But  whether  by  the  master  himself 
or  by  one  of  his  disciples,  the  statue  is  one  of  the  best  that  has 
come  down  to  us  from  antiquity. 

PLATE  208a.    Maiden  or  Muse  from  Herculaneum.    Of  marble. 

Albertinum,  Dresden.  Accidentally  discovered  either  in  1706  or  in 
1713  in  Herculaneum.  The  discovery  of  this  and  of  the  following 
statue  led  to  the  more  extensive  excavations  in  Herculaneum  thirty 
years  later.  Both  statues  were  sold  to  Prince  Eugene,  who  sold  them 
in  1736  to  King  August  of  Saxony.  There  are  practically  no  restora- 
tions. Reinach  11,665,  i  and  I,  256,  4;  F.  W.,  1688.  For  the  hair- 
dress  compare  the  head  of  Kora  in  Munich,  Springer  I,  p.  247,  fig.  435. 

PLATE  208b.  Matron  or  Muse  from  Herculaneum.  Of  marble. 
Dresden.  Traces  of  gold  *  were  found  in  the  hair  of  the  statue.  For 
discovery,  etc.,  see  note  to  Plate  2o8a.  F.  W.,  1687;  Reinach  I,  449, 
8.  For  similar  statues  see  Reinach  II,  67of. ;  Baumeister,  p.  1088, 
figs.  1297-1299 ;  A.  J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  424,  fig.  2,  statue  from  Corinth. 

These  statues  were  at  first  named  Vestals,  then  Muses,2 
then  portrait  statues,  and  lately  again  Muses.s  The  fact  is  that 
these  particular  statues  are  not  original  creations,  but  adapta- 
tions of  a  famous  type,  to  judge  by  the  numerous  extant 
copies.  In  several  instances  portrait  heads «  have  been  added, 
which  accounts  for  the  identification  of  these  figures,  as  mother 
and  daughter.  If  this  had  been  the  artist's  intention,  he  could 

1  Recently  a  replica  was  found  in  Delos,  see  B.  C.  If.,  VII,  1895, 
Plate  VII,  which  had  retained  numerous  traces  of  color  ;  red  and  gold 
on  the  sandal,  blue  and  gold  on  the  border  of  the  garment,  blue  and 
violet  in  the  folds,  red  in  the  hair.  The  hairdress  is  the  same  as  is 
found  on  the  relief  of  Nymphs  in  Vienna,  Mitchell,  p.  500,  fig.  224. 
2Compare  the  Muses  on  Plates  211  and  212.  3  Salomon  Reinach, 
Rev.  Arch.,  1900,  Vol.  37,  pp.  3800°.  4See,  for  instance,  the  statue 
excavated  in  Olympia,  Baumeister,  p.  1088,  fig.  1299. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  207 

not  have  chosen  better  types ;  for  one  statue  is  unmistakably 
the  modest  maiden  and  the  other  clearly  the  mature  woman. 
Proportions  and  demeanor  show  this. 

The  general  grace  of  both  statues  has  led  scholars  to  assign 
them  to  the  Praxitelean  cyclus.  Recently,  however,  this  view 
has  been  challenged  and  the  type  been  claimed  for  Lysippos, 
who  is  called  by  Pausanias  (I,  43,  6)  the  maker  of  Muses.1 
The  lengthy  proportions 2  of  both  figures,  noticeable  especially 
in  the  Maiden,  are  in  keeping  with  the  style  of  Lysippos. 
With  this  exception,  and  unless  we  have  not  yet  reached  a 
proper  appreciation  of  his  style,  there  is  little  in  these  statues 
to  remind  one  of  him.  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged 
that  the  same  is  true  of  the  recently  discovered  statue  of 
Hagias,  Plate  234,  which  one  would  hesitate  to  attribute  to 
Lysippos,  if  it  could  not  be  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  he 
made  it.  It  is,  therefore,  wise  to  reserve  judgment  in  the 
case  of  the  Dresden  statues  and  to  wait  for  more  conclusive 
proofs. 

PLATE  209a.  Three  Graces  (Charities).  Of  marble.  Opera  del 
Duomo,  Siena.  Discovered  in  Rome  during  the  pontificate  of  Pius 
II  (1458-1464),  and  presented  by  him  to  the  cathedral  library,  but  re- 
moved thence  in  1857  by  the  desire  of  Pope  Pius  IX  (1846-1878). 
From  this  group  Raphael  made  his  first  studies  from  the  antique,  and 
his  designs  are  preserved  in  Venice.  Knackf  uss-Zimmermann  I,  pp. 
222f.  ;  Reinach  I,  346,  2.  The  head  of  one  of  the  Muses,  Plate  473b. 

PLATE  209b.    Boy  and  Girl, "  Eros  and  Psyche."    Of  marble. 

Capitoline  Museum,  Rome.  Found  on  the  Aventine  and  added  to  the 
Capitoline  collections  in  1749  by  Pope  Benedict  XIV.  Restorations: 
On  Eros,  the  nose,  parts  of  the  back  of  the  head  and  of  the  neck,  the 
right  hand  (but  there  were  traces  of  three  fingers  on  Psyche's  cheek), 

1 A  recently  discovered  inscription  on  a  large  base  in  Megara  reads, 
"  Theramenes,  son  of  Timoxenos,  dedicated  (the  group),  Lysippos 
made  it."  2  See  discussion  of  the  style  of  Lysippos  below. 


208  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  palm  of  the  left  hand  and  the  left  foot.  On  Psyche,  the  nose  and 
practically  the  entire  right  hand.  The  plinth  is  modern.  Helbig,  457; 
Reinach  I,  361,  2.  For  Eros  and  Psyche  on  a  sarcophagus  in  Clieveden 
see  J.  H.  S.,  XX,  1900,  Plate  Xlb.  For  a  classification  of  the  many 
extant  Eros  and  Psyche  statues  see  E.  Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.,  1901,  pp. 
57-93 ;  reviewed,  A.  J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  p.  214. 

Both  these  groups  seem  to  owe  their  inspiration  to  the 
sunny  atmosphere  which  pervades  the  work  of  Praxiteles.  Eros 
and  Psyche,  as  the  second  group  is  commonly  called,  are  in 
reality  a  boy  and  a  girl  at  play,  he  opening  her  mouth  "  in 
order  to  count  her  teeth  or  for  some  similar  freak."  Later 
adaptations  of  this  group  changed  this  motive ;  wings  were 
added  to  these  children,  and  they  became  gods.  They  were 
represented  as  kissing  each  other  and  the  beautiful  innocence 
of  the  playful  pair  was  lost. 

The  design  of  both  groups  is  wonderful,  and  the  daring  of 
conception  of  the  three  Graces  admirable.  If  one  would  ap- 
preciate the  "  Eros  and  Psyche  "  group  to  the  fullest  extent, 
one  ought  to  compare  it  with  the  first  Greek  group,  Kitylos 
and  Dermys,  Plate  na. 

PLATES  210-212.    Three  Slabs  from  the  Mantineian  Base.    Of 

marble.  National  Museum,  Athens.  Found  in  Mantineia,  in  Arkadia, 
in  1887.  E.  von  Mach,  p.  27  ;  Robinson,  520  A-C,  with  bibliography  ; 
to  which  add  W.  Amelung,  translated  by  P.  Gardner,  /.  H.  S.,  XVII, 
1897,  pp.  I2off.,  on  the  arrangement  of  the  slabs,  retracting  his  (Gard- 
ner's) views  expressed  ib.,  XVI,  1896,  pp.  28off. ;  S.  Reinach,  Rev. 
Arch.,  XXXIV,  1899,  P-  3°9-  Waldstein's  theory,  A.  J.  A.,  First 
Series,  VII,  1891,  pp.  iff.  (accepted  by  Overbeck)  is  now  recognized  to 
be  untenable.  For  the  seated  Apollo  compare  the  relief  from  Ikaria, 
A.J.  A.,  First  Series,  V,  Plate  XI.  For  another  base  recently  assigned 
to  Praxiteles  by  O.  Benndorf,  see  A.  J.  A.,  IV,  1900,  p.  348;  F.  W., 
2147- 

If  we  accept  Amelung's  arrangement  of  these  three  slabs  we 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  209 

must  suppose  that  an  additional  slab  has  been  lost.  Two 
decorated  the  front  of  the  base  :  Plate  210  and  the  lost  relief; 
Plate  211  was  on  the  left  side  turning  the  corner  from  the  lost 
slab;  and  Plate  212  on  the  corresponding  right  side.  This 
would  give  a  base  2.70  m.  long  and  1.43  m.  deep,  sufficiently 
large  to  have  supported  the  group  of  Leto  and  her  two  chil- 
dren by  Praxiteles.  P*ausanias  (VIII,  9,  i),  who  saw  this 
group,  mentioned  the  reliefs  of  the  base,  saying  they  repre- 
sented the  (or  a)  Muse  and  Marsyas  playing  a  flute.  Most 
scholars  believe  he  said  the  Muses,  but  that  the  plural  form 
was  inadvertently  changed  in  the  manuscript  to  the  singular. 
Whatever  he  said,  he  did  not  mention  Apollo,  Plate  210. 
This  is  not  astonishing,  for  the  long  garment '  of  this  god  easily 
mislead  the  casual  observer  so  that  he  saw  in  him  another 
Muse. 

The  reliefs  have  been  attributed  to  Praxiteles  because  he 
was  the  maker  of  the  group  that  stood  on  the  base  which  they 
decorated.  This  argument,  however,  is  itself  not  convincing, 
while  the  carelessness  of  the  execution,  showing  many  mis- 
takes in  drawing,  actually  proves  its  fallacy.  Notice  the  right 
leg  of  the  seated  Muse  on  Plate  212,  and  the  left  leg  of  the 
central  figure  on  Plate  211. 

The  general  design  of  the  reliefs  is  remarkably  graceful  and 
on  that  account  worthy  of  Praxiteles.  It  is,  however,  hardly 
better  than  many  contemporary  terra  cottas.  Professor  Zim- 
mermann  has  made  this  very  clear  by  placing  side  by  side 
(Knackfuss-Zimmermann  I,  figs.  141  and  142)  pictures  of  one 
of  the  Mantineian  slabs  and  of  three  Tanagra  figures. 

For  the  style  of  the  reliefs  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  they 
are  not  carved  under  the  horror  vacui*  that  had  dominated 


1  See  discussion  to  Plate  io4a  (Text  Illustration  25).     2  For  explan. 
ation  and  discussion  of  this  term  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  50  and  65. 


210  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

most  of  the  earlier  creations  :  the  figures  are  not  crowded. 
Another  valuable  comparison  is  made  between  the  Marsyas 
after  Myron,  Plate  653,  and  him  from  Mantineia,  Plate  210, 
who  has  lost  the  Myronic  moderation  without  going  to  the 
extreme  of  the  recoiling  man  on  the  frieze  of  the  Maussolleion, 
Plate  2290. 

Skopas  and  His  School. 

Skopas  is  the  great  contemporary  of  Praxiteles,  with  whose 
works  his  own  used  to  be  confused.  The  exact  dates  of 
both  men  are  unknown,  although  it  seems  that  Skopas  was 
slightly  the  older,  working  in  Tegea  probably  as  early  as 
soon  after  396  B.  C.1  Until  recently,  however,  so  little  was 
known  of  his  style  that  it  seemed  more  desirable  to  begin  the 
study  of  fourth  century  Greek  art  with  the  works  of  Praxiteles. 
There  were  the  fewer  objections  to  this  procedure,  as  the  dates 
of  these  artists  are  purely  conjectural  beyond  the  fact  that 
both  men  were  active  during  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury before  Christ. 

The  works  which  are  definitely  associated  with  Skopas  show 
the  same  perfection  of  execution  as  those  of  Praxiteles.  Peace 
of  mind,  however,  has  given  way  in  them  to  more  passionate 
moods.  The  dreamy  eyes  of  Praxiteles,  reflecting  a  wealth 
of  light,  have  become  with  Skopas  deeply  shadowed  and  of 
sinister  purport. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  believe  that  Skopas  always  worked 
thus.  The  fact  is  these  are  the  only  works  which  are  surely 
his.  In  respect  to  others,  we  lack  the  very  starting  point  of 
an  aesthetic  appreciation.  The  only  absolutely  certain  works 

1  The  temple  of  Athena  Alea  in  Tegea  was  burned  in  396  B.  C. 
Skopas  was  engaged  in  the  rebuilding  of  this  temple. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  211 

of  Skopas  are  the  much  worn  heads  from  Tegea,  Plate  469.' 
The  heads,  Plates  470  and  471,  and  the  statues  and  reliefs 
grouped  together  on  Plates  213-216  and  219  are  attributed  to 
him  largely  on  the  strength  of  the  Tegea  heads.  The  Ephesos 
drum,  Plate  217,  is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  him  because 
he  worked  in  Ephesos.  Another  often  quoted  argument,  based 
on  Pliny,  36,  95,  is  of  extremely  doubtful  accuracy. 

PLATE  213.  Ares  Ludovisi.  Of  marble.  Museo  delle  Terme, 
formerly  Museo  Boncampagni-Ludovisi,  Rome.  Discovered,  exact 
date  unknown,  but  earlier  than  1633,  near  the  palace  of  Santa  Croce, 
Rome.  Restorations  :  On  Ares,  the  nose ;  right  hand,  except  the  part 
touching  the  knee  ;  several  fingers  of  the  left  hand  ;  the  right  foot,  ex- 
cept the  heel ;  and  the  greater  part  of  the  sword.  On  Eros,  parts  of 
both  arms,  the  quiver,  the  bow,  the  right  foot  and  part  of  the  right  leg. 
Points  of  attachment  on  the  left  side  of  the  figure  show  that  either 
another  figure  or  some  object  was  added  there.  Helbig,  883 ;  F.  W., 
1268  ;  Robinson,  524  ;  Overbeck  II,  pp.  \"ji. ;  Reinach  I,  515,  6  and  7  ; 
for  a  doubtful  replica  see  Reinach  II,  192,  6;  for  the  torso  in  Naples 
Reinach  II,  192,  5. 

The  proper  interpretation  of  the  Ares  Ludovisi  depends  on 
the  explanation  of  his  pose.  Figures  hugging  their  knees  are 
not  frequent  in  sculpture.2  They  are,  however,  less  excep- 
tional in  vase  painting,  and  there  it  seems  3  the  gesture  implies 
impatience.  Granting  that  it  expresses  the  same  in  sculpture 
no  motive  would  seem  to  be  better  adapted  to  the  style  of 
Skopas  •*  than  this  —  the  fiery  god  of  war  restrained  from  action, 

1  For  the  yield  of  the  recent  excavations  in  Tegea,  nine  fragments, 
among  them  a  fine  head  of  Herakles  and  a  torso,  probably  Atalante  of 
the  East  Pediment,  see  B.  C.  H.,  XXV,  1901,  pp.  241-281  ;  reviewed, 
A.  _/.  A.,  VII,  1903,  pp.  3y8f.  2One  other  occurs  on  the  East  Frieze  of 
the  Parthenon.  3  See  Rev.  Arch.,  XXXIII,  1898,  figs.  5-7.  4Fora 
discussion  on  the  style  of  Skopas,  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  279ff.,  also 
p.  267. 


212  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

not  by  physical  inability  but  by  thoughts  conflicting  with  his 
natural  temperament.  What  these  thoughts  were  we  do  not 
know;  possibly  a  figure,  now  lost,  at  his  left,  held  the  key  to 
the  interpretation.  The  little  Eros  at  his  feet,  of  dimensions 
unknown  in  the  fourth  century,  is  the  addition  of  the  copyist, 
but  may  correctly  suggest '  the  motive  for  the  god's  impa- 
tient inactivity.  Ares  was  in  love.  Aphrodite  stood  at  his 
side.  It  is  true  that  the  points  of  attachment  on  the  shoulder 
lend  themselves  not  well  to  the  supposition  that  Aphrodite  was 
there  represented.  But  in  the  original  the  Ludovisi  Ares  may 
have  been  part  of  a  group  of  figures  carved  independently. 

An  Ares  by  Skopas  stood  in  Roman  times  in  a  temple  built 
by  Junius  Brutus  Gallsecus  (about  133  B.  C.)  Here  Pliny 
saw  it  and  mentioned  it  {N.  H.t  36,  26).  A  copy  of  this 
statue  scholars  recognize  in  a  relief  from  the  arch  of  Constan- 
tine,  Plate  346a,  where  the  seated  Ares  has  a  spear  in  his  right 
hand,  and  a  Nike  on  his  left  hand,  but  does  not  hold  up  his 
knee.  On  this  score  Overbeck  and  others  feel  sure  that  the 
Ares  Ludovisi  does  not  reproduce  the  statue  by  Skopas.  A 
closer  observation,  however,  shows  that  the  relief  sculptor  has 
taken  decided  liberties,  avoiding  everything  that  could  result 
in  difficult  foreshortening.  The  only  thing,  therefore,  that  even 
in  antiquity  suggested  the  statue  was  probably  its  seated  atti- 
tude. If  this  is  granted,  it  may  be  assumed  that  Nike  in  the 
relief  has  been  added  in  honor  of  the  Emperor  standing 
below.  Far  from  serving,  therefore,  as  an  argument  against 
the  Skopadean  origin  of  the  Ludovisi  figure,  the  Roman  relief 
makes  this  origin  more  probable,  for  it  indicates  that  the 
statue  by  Skopas  was  seated. 


1  Copyists  often  added  attributes  not  contained  in  the  original  in 
order  to  suggest  the  exact  motive  which  they  endeavored  to  copy.  See 
the  leather  thong  on  the  tree -trunk  of  the  Boxer  after  Pythagoras, 
Plate  67. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  213 

There  is  only  one  consideration  that  may  make  one  hesitate 
to  claim  the  Ludovisi  Ares  as  a  copy  after  Skopas,  and  that  is 
his  dimensions.  His  limbs  are  certainly  long  compared  with 
his  body.  Imagine  Ares  standing  and  his  proportions  are 
more  like  those  of  the  Apoxyomenos  after  Lysippos,  Plate  235, 
than  those  of  the  Meleager  statues,  Plates  214-216.  This, 
however,  is  no  sure  indication  of  Lysippean  origin,  for  it  is 
readily  seen  that  the  artist  had  to  make  allowances  to  the  pe- 
culiar position  of  his  figure.  On  the  Parthenon  frieze  the  left 
leg  of  the  god  clasping  his  right  knee  does  not  reach  to  the 
floor.  This  is  not  unpleasantly  noticed  because  of  the  lines  of 
the  goddess  seated  in  front  of  him.  In  the  Ludovisi  Ares  such 
a  short  leg  would  have  been  very  disturbing.  The  artist  might 
have  lowered  the  seat  or  have  drawn  the  leg  farther  back.  In 
both  cases  he  would  have  spoiled  the  beauty  of  his  design. 
The  only  satisfactory  solution  r  of  the  problem  was  the  length- 
ening of  the  legs.  To  argue  from  this  device  that  the  statue 
is  by  Lysippos,  who  introduced  long  and  slender  limbs  as  a 
characteristic  element  of  his  statues,  is  straining  the  evidence. 
If  the  Ares  has  any  connection  with  Lysippos,  it  may  be  that 
he  served  as  a  prototype  to  him.  There  is  no  evidence  on 
this  point,  but  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  acci- 
dentally lengthened  limbs  of  Ares  may  have  suggested  such 
proportions  to  the  later  sculptor.  The  Apoxyomenos  would 
thus  be  inspired  by  the  Ares,  a  theory  which  gains  in  probabil- 
ity owing  to  the  correspondence  that  seems  to  exist  between 
the  heads  of  the  two  statues.  A  much  better  replica  of  the 
Ares  head  in  Munich  (Glyptothek,  No.  272),  shows  an  un- 

1  Such  solutions  of  problems  are  frequent  in  Greek  sculpture.  They 
amount  to  deviations  from  proportions  customarily  employed  by  the 
sculptor.  For  instances  of  this  kind  see  Plate  109,  the  legs;  and  Plate 
453,  the  mouth. 


214  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

mistakable  affinity  to  the  surely  Skopadean  heads,  although 
it  is,  as  Furtwangler  correctly  observes,  not  far  removed  from 
the  type  of  Lysippos. 

PLATE  214.  Meleager.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Berlin.  Discov- 
ered in  1838  near  Santa  Marinella,  not  far  from  Rome.  Acquired  for 
Berlin  in  1841.  Restorations  :  the  head,  the  right  arm  and  hand, 
several  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  the  lower  half  of  the  right  leg,  the  right 
foot,  the  left  leg  from  below  the  knee,  the  plinth  and  the  dog.  Berlin, 
Catalogue,  215,  with  necessary  bibliography.  Reinach  I,  484,  I. 

PLATE  215.  Meleager.  Of  marble.  Fogg  Museum  of  Harvard 
University;  Cambridge,  Mass.  Discovered  in  1895  near  Santa  Mari- 
nella, within  one  hundred  yards  of  the  place  where,  in  1838,  the  Berlin 
Meleager,  Plate  214,  was  found.  Purchased  by  Miss  Forbes  and  de- 
posited in  Harvard  in  1899.  Noticie  degli  Scam,  1895,  P>  r9^  »  ^-  Norton, 
Harvard  Graduates'  Magazine,  June,  1900,  pp.  485ff.  ;  A.  J.  A.,  IV, 
1900,  p.  275;  E.  von  Mach,  A.  J.  A.,  V,  1901,  pp.  29ff  .  ;  Reinach  II, 
555,  6.  The  measurements  in  inches  of  this  little-known  statue  are  as 
follows,  the  figures  in  brackets  designating  the  corresponding  measure- 
ments of  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  :  From  the  roots  of  the  hair  to  the 
hair  of  the  privy  parts,  34  (34)  ;  navel  to  privy  hair,  6)^  (7/4)  ',  neck 
around  the  chin,  21  (21%);  around  the  neck  under  the  chin,  18  (18)  ; 
across  the  brow  just  above  the  ears,  25)^  (27);  root  of  hair  over  fore- 
head to  end  of  chin,  6  4-5  (7^)  ;  around  the  waist,  37%  (41)  <  greatest 
thickness,  9  (n). 

PLATE  216.  Meleager.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Discov- 
ered, date  unknown,  probably  in  Rome.  In  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  it  belonged  to  the  physician  of  Pope  Paul  III.  Clement  XIV 
(1769-1775)  acquired  it  for  the  Vatican.  The  only  restorations  are  the 
tip  of  the  nose  of  Meleager  and  the  ears  of  the  dog.  Helbig,  133; 
Robinson  (Supplement),  522,  E  ;  Reinach  I,  479,  2.  The  most  impor- 
tant article  on  these  statues  is  by  B.  Graef,  Rom.  Mitth.,  IV,  1889,  pp. 
2i8ff.  Their  relation  to  Skopas  is  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 


Of  these  three  statues  the  Harvard  Meleager  takes  the  least 
satisfactory  picture  and,  being  unrestored,  fails  to  reveal  his 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  215 

beauty.  He  is,  moreover,  little  known  and  nothing  has  been 
published  about  him  in  detail  to  which  the  reader  can  be  re- 
ferred. It  is  therefore,  advisable  to  give  a  full  description  of 
him. 

He  stands  erect,  resting  the  weight  of  his  body  on  the  right 
leg.  The  left  leg  was  bent  in  the  knee,  with  the  left  foot 
slightly  in  the  rear.  The  right  hand  rested  easily  on  the  back, 
as  is  seen  from  a  slight  fracture  where  the  hand  was  attached. 
The  left  hand  held  the  light  hunting-spear,  the  point  of  which 
is  seen  just  below  the  armpit.  The  ancient  hunting-spear  was 
short  and  provided  with  two  prongs.  The  preservation  of  one 
of  these  prongs  in  the  Berlin  Meleager  materially  aided  in  the 
identification  of  the  statue.  In  the  Harvard  copy  the  prongs 
are  broken  away,  but  the  place  of  attachment  of  one  of  them 
is  still  visible.  This,  together  with  the  unmistakable  spear- 
head preserved  under  the  shoulder,  disproves  Norton's  view 
that  the  hero  was  easily  resting  on  "  his  inverted  spear."  The 
position  is  not,  as  Norton  says,  like  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles, 
who  divides  the  weight  between  his  right  leg  and  his  left  arm, 
resting  on  a  tree-trunk.  No  one  can  rest  his  weight  on  a 
pointed  spear,  but  if  a  person  should  nevertheless  attempt  to 
do  so,  the  spear  would  have  to  touch  the  armpit,  which  is  not 
the  case  in  the  Harvard  statue.  Meleager  is  supporting  his 
entire  weight  solely  on  his  right  leg,  which  gives  to  the  statue 
a  decidedly  more  powerful  rhythm  than  is  seen  in  Hermes. 

The  head  was  broken,  but  has  been  restored.  A  minute 
examination  of  the  fracture  has  proved  that  it  belongs  to  the 
statue  ;  it  was  carved  of  the  same  block  with  the  torso.  Look- 
ing in  the  direction  of  the  free  leg  and  with  eyes  full  of  eager- 
ness and  pleasant  self-consciousness  the  hero  is  gazing  into  the 
distance. 

Both  arms  are  broken  just  below  the  shoulder.  A  fragment 
of  the  left  arm  to  about  half  way  between  the  shoulder  and  the 


2l6  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

elbow  was  found,  together  with  the  statue,  and  has  been  at- 
tached. This  fragment  contains  the  pointed  end  of  the  spear. 
The  body  has  been  severely  scratched  and  shows  several  round 
fractures,  spoiling  somewhat  a  close  view,  but  too  slight  to  mar 
the  rhythm  of  the  composition.  The  modelling  is  exquisite 
with  the  added  charm  of  moderation.  The  back  is  not  less 
excellent  than  the  front.  To  run  one's  finger  tips  over  the 
body,  gives  one  the  sense  of  touching  actual  epidermis  and  of 
feeling  the  blood  course  under  the  skin.  The  modelling  of 
the  left  shoulder  is  especially  sympathetic.  As  in  nature,  one 
can  feel  and  see  beneath  the  bolster  of  muscles  and  fat  the 
shape  of  the  shoulder  blade  itself.  The  legs  are  broken  con- 
siderably above  the  knees,  and  of  the  several  fragments  which 
have  been  found  none  fits  the  fractures.  Among  the  fragments 
is  the  left  knee,  which  is  of  surpassing  beauty.  One  forgets 
that  it  is  of  stone.  It  is  the  actual  intricate  structure  of  na- 
ture herself  without  exaggerations  or  omissions,  a  work  of  con- 
summate skill  and  loving  art.  From  the  anatomy  of  this  knee 
the  position  of  the  left  leg  can  be  definitely  ascertained. 

With  all  these  excellent  points  of  the  statue,  there  are  a  few 
signs  of  carelessness  in  workmanship  ;  for  while  the  left  cheek 
is  beautifully  modelled,  the  right  cheek  is  cold,  flat,  and  life- 
less. It  is  badly  corroded,  but  this  alone  cannot  account  for 
its  inferiority ;  for  the  left  shoulder,  which  is  almost  equally 
corroded,  has  preserved  its  magnificence.  The  poverty  of 
modelling  of  the  right  cheek  continues,  though  to  a  less  de- 
gree, to  the  neck,  and  is  painfully  noticeable  just  below  the 
chin.  The  only  other  place  of  poor  modelling  is  on  the  lower 
front  part  of  the  left  arm. 

One  is  furthermore  astonished  at  the  use  of  the  grooved 
drill  to  mark  the  partition  line  between  the  legs,  both  in  front 
and  in  the  back,  where  a  regular  little  hole  marks  the  starting 
point  of  the  drill.  When  so  much  has  been  done  to  make  the 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  21  ^ 

statue  life-like,  this  schematic  way  of  treatment  in  places, 
which  are  clearly  visible,  is  surprising.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  many  supports  or  places  where  supports  have  been  broken 
away.  There  are  eight  such  supports,1  partly  on  the  torso  it- 
self, partly  on  those  fragments  which  unmistakably  belong  to 
the  statue. 


1  The  supports  are  :  i.  The  right  hand  was  attached  on  the  back. 
This  place  of  attachment  was  so  small  that  perhaps  it  ought  not  to  be 
mentioned  as  a  support.  A  comparison  of  it  with  the  regular  square 
block  which,  in  the  Vatican  Meleager,  forms  the  connection  between 
the  body  and  the  hand  makes  one  admire  the  skill  of  the  artist. 

2.  Of  the  same  nature  is  the  indication  of  where  the  hook  rested  on 
the  side. 

3.  Regular  support,  apparently  between  the  left  hip  and  the  spear, 
2^  inches  high,  i%  inches  broad  at  the  top  and  almost  2  inches  at  the 
bottom,  smoothly  finished  only  in  front. 

4.  Fragment  of  similar  support  eight  inches  further  down  on  the 
left  leg,  too  badly  fractured  to  allow  one  to  draw  any  conculsions  from 
it.     It  follows  the  same  direction  as  No.  3.     Both  lie  almost  in  the 
perpendicular  of  the  continuation  of  the  back  of  the  spear  head.     The 
thin  spear  would  need  such   double  supports  in  this  short  distance, 
especially  since  it  had  to  support  the  left  arm  and  hand.    This  indicates 
that  the  Harvard  statue  ought  not  to  be  restored  with  a  boar  head  as 
in  the  Vatican  statue. 

5.  Support  on  the  back  of  the  left  leg  2%  inches  broad,  surface  of 
attachment  i)^  inches  at  the   sides,  2  inches  in  the  middle.     Upper 
surface  slanting  downward.     It  seems   to  have  connected  the  statue 
with  some  object  which  might  have  been  introduced  to  support  the 
heavy  marble  statue.     What  this  object  was  we  do  not  know.     The 
support  itself  is  too  slight  to  have  acted  as  main  support,  besides  being 
unable  to  reach  the  ground  in  a  curve — of  which  there  is  no  indi- 
cation—  as  in  the  Hermes  of  Andros,  Plate  191,  where  the  surface  of 
attachment  is  much  larger. 

6.  On  the  fragment  of  the  lower  left  leg,  just  below  the  calf,  there 
is  a  very  powerful  support  5^  inches  high  and  3  inches  thick,  obviously 
connecting  the  two  legs,  smooth  only  in  front. 


218  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

These  considerations  make  it  clear  that  the  statue  cannot 
be  an  original  by  the  hand  of  Skopas.  It  is,  however,  the 
best  extant  copy,  and  maintains  its  superiority  also  when  it  is 
compared  with  the  beautiful  Medici  head  I  in  Rome.  In  no 
other  Skopadean  head  has  so  much  skill  been  spent  on  the  so- 
lution of  technical  problems  and  in  no  other  is  the  result  so 
singularly  beautiful  as  in  the  Harvard  Meleager.  The  eye  is 
surrounded  by  deep  shadows,2  without  itself  being  in  the  dark. 
This  is  done  in  three  successive  stages.  First,  the  surround- 
ings of  the  eye  are  built  out :  brow,  cheek-bone,  outer  muscle 
and  root  of  the  nose.  Secondly,  the  eyelid  is  thick.  In  the 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles  it  is  so  thin  that  the  touch  hardly  reveals 
it.  Thirdly,  the  edge  of  the  eyelid  does  not  rest  on  the  eye- 
ball, but  is  undercut  by  a  groove.  Every  one  of  these  three 
devices  tends  to  increase  the  apparent  depth  of  the  eye,  with- 
out, however,  preventing  the  eyeball  from  catching  and  re- 
flecting the  light.  The  reflection,  however,  has  to  pass  the 
three  stages  of  shadows  and  thus  creates  a  very  different  im- 
pression from  that  of  the  eyes  of  the  Praxitelean  figures. 

7.  Directly  opposite  this  there  is  a  thinner,  much  smaller  support, 
probably  corresponding  to  3  and  4,  as  supports  for  the  spear,  2  inches 
wide,  i  inch  long,  but  broken  before  it  ends. 

8.  Likewise  on  the  outer  side  of  this  leg  there  is  another  support, 
oblong,  almost  rectangular,  3)^  inches ;  2%  inches  going  back  diago- 
nally to  the  left,  probably  towards  the  same  object,  with  which  sup- 
port No.  5  was  connected. 

On  the  other  fragments  there  are  additional  indications  of  supports, 
but  they  are  too  fragmentary  to  allow  of  any  conclusions  to  be  drawn 
from  them.  The  more  important  of  these  fragments  are  a  part  of  a 
thigh,  parts,  possibly,  of  the  spear  and  several  objects  of  an  indeter- 
minable shape. 

'The  best  accessible  picture  of  this  head  is  Antike  Denkmdler,  I, 
Plate  XL,  and  a  small  reproduction  of  it  in  Tarbell,  p.  217,  fig.  146. 

2  Shadows  on  the  photographic  plate  are  intensified,  so  that  the  eye 
seems  to  be  perfectly  dark. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  219 

The  mouth  is  carved  similarly  to  the  eyes.  Behind  the 
parted  lips  the  teeth  are  seen,  undercut  from  the  lips  and 
themselves  undercut  from  the  supposed  opening  of  the  mouth 
behind.  It  is  the  mystery  of  shadows  that  adds  its  charm  to 
the  Harvard  head,  and  raises  it  far  above  the  conventional 
head  of  the  Vatican  statue,  and  even  of  the  excellent  Medici 
head. 

The  Harvard  and  Berlin  copies  differ  from  the  Vatican 
copy  in  that  they  have  no  drapery.  The  addition  of  the  gar- 
ment is  an  innovation,  no  doubt,  of  the  copyist,  who  resorted 
to  it,  not  from  reasons  of  beauty  but  of  expediency.  It  was 
difficult  to  pose  the  statue  with  no  other  support  than  the 
spear,  and  even  when  this  was  successfully  done  the  statue  was 
not  very  secure.  Both  the  Berlin  and  the  Harvard  statues  are 
badly  broken.  The  sculptor  of  the  Vatican  Meleager  added  a 
drapery  and  twisted  its  lower  end  so  that  it  might  serve  as  a 
material  support,  together  with  the  likewise  newly  introduced 
boar's  head.  This  statue  is  less  pleasant  to  look  at,  but  is 
durable ;  it  alone  has  come  down  through  the  ages  practically 
intact. 

PLATES  217  and  218.     Sculptured  Drum  of  a  Column  from 

EpheSQS.  Two  views.  Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London.  Dis- 
covered in  1871,  "deeply  buried  in  the  sand  and  marble  chippings  at 
the  west  end  of  the  temple  .  .  .  turned  completely  over,"  (Wood,  p. 
189).  J.  T.  Wood,  Discoveries  at  Ephesos ;  British  Museum  Cata- 
logue, 1 206,  with  full  bibliography  and  restorations,  also  ground  plan  of 
the  temple,  pp.  168  and  169;  Robinson,  526;  F.  W.,  1242.  This 
column  is  from  the  temple,  the  rebuilding  of  which  after  a  fire  was 
begun  not  before  356  B.  C.  For  a  column  of  the  earlier  temple  see 
Plate  45. 

The  connection  of  these  figures  with  the  style  of  Skopas 
rests  on  two  arguments  :  First,  Pliny  (N.  H.,  36,  95)  says  that 
the  reliefs  on  one  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven 


220 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


columns  of  the  temple  were  made  by  Skopas ; '  secondly,  the 
pathos  of  the  scene  represented,  and  especially  the  face  of 
Hermes,  agree  with  our  knowledge  of  the  style  of  Skopas. 
The  second  argument  is  the  only  valid  one ;  for  even  if  the 
reading  of  Pliny's  manuscript  is  correct,  which  is  open  to 
doubts,  it  would  be  an  almost  incredible  stroke  of  good  luck 
that  the  only  well-preserved  drum  discovered  should  be  the 
one  mentioned  by  Pliny  out  of  more  than  five  score. 

The  subject  represented  on  this  relief  is  still  unidentified. 
C.  Robert 2  suggests  an  incident  from  the  myth  of  Alkestis. 
The  winged  figure,  according  to  him,  is  Thanatos  (Death) 
compelled  to  release  Alkestis.  Hermes  stands  on  the  left  of 
the  woman,  ready  to  assist  her  to  the  upper  world.  The  re- 
maining figures  of  the  relief,  not  seen  in  the  picture,  are  the 
god  and  goddess  of  the  lower  world  and  Herakles. 

The  objections  which  have  been  advanced  against  Robert's 
interpretation  are,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  does  not  agree 
strictly  enough  with  the  transmitted  myth  ;  secondly,  that  the 
fragment  identified  as  Herakles  has  a  cloak  slung  around  his 
left  arm,  similar  to  that  of  Hermes,  which  is  impossible,  it 
seems,  for  a  figure  of  Herakles ;  and  finally,  that  the  action 
appears  to  be  moving  toward  Thanatos  rather  than  away  from 
him.  The  first  two  objections  are  well  taken,  the  second  is 
open  to  doubts.  The  gesture  of  "Thanatos,"  for  instance, 
of  which  Robinson  says  that  it,  "  certainly  does  not  suggest 
that  he  is  resigning  the  woman  to  Hermes,"  may,  nevertheless, 
be  so  interpreted.  It  is  very  similar  to  the  gesture  of  Orpheus, 
Plate  1 7  9,  after  whose  pose  "Thanatos"  is  obviously  modelled. 
The  Orpheus  gesture  has  its  definite  meaning ;  that  of  "  Than- 


1  Pliny  says,  una  »  Scopa.  E.  Curtius,  Arch.  Zeitung,  1872,  p.  72, 
suggests  that  this  is  a  corruption  of  an  original  imo  scapo,  that  is, 
"  on  the  lowest  drum."  2In  Thanatos,  Berlin,  1879,  P-  3& 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  221 

atos  "  is  meaningless.  Only  a  person  ill-versed  in  the  customs 
of  the  Greeks  can  explain  it  as  one  of  beckoning.  The 
Greeks,  both  ancient  and  modern,  beckon  differently;  they 
extend  their  arm  with  the  hand  palm  downward  and  move  the 
fingers  toward  their  bodies.  The  gesture  of  "Thanatos," 
therefore,  can  only  mean  that  he  once  stood  as  intimately 
close  to  the  woman  as  Orpheus  stands  to  Eurydike.  This 
suggestion,  perhaps  out  of  place  in  the  case  of  the  spirit  of 
Death,  is  nevertheless  the  one  conveyed  by  the  Ephesos  relief, 
and  can  be  interpreted  only  in  one  way,  Death  has  released 
the  woman  —  unless  we  actually  refuse,  on  the  strength  of  the 
gesture,  to  accept  the  interpretation  of  the  winged  figure  as 
Death,  which  probably  is  the  right  course  to  follow. 

This  leaves  the  subject  still  unidentified,  while  it  teaches  at 
the  same  time  that  the  relief  cannot  be  by  Skopas,  for  this 
master  would  surely  not  have  been  so  meagre  in  resources  that 
he  was  obliged  to  copy  the  Orpheus  and  Eurydike  relief. 

Nothing  can  better  reveal  the  contrast  between  the  spirit  of 
the  fifth  century  and  that  of  the  fourth  century  than  a  com- 
parison of  the  two  reliefs.  Allowances,  to  be  sure,  must  be 
made  for  the  rounding  surface  of  the  later  work,  which  for- 
bade the  intimate  connection  of  the  several  figures.  The 
elegance  of  the  woman  from  Ephesos  is  as  evident  as  the  sim- 
ple charm  of  Eurydike.  The  skill  of  the  later  artist  is 
greater.  In  the  folds  of  the  drapery  lightly  held  up  in  the 
hand  of  the  woman,  the  seemingly  impossible  has  been  accom- 
plished ;  the  texture  of  the  heavy  marble  has  been  changed  to 
the  texture  of  soft  cloth.  It  is  skill  like  this  that  made  possi- 
ble, for  instance,  the  Knidian  Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles,  Plate 
198,  ready  to  drop  her  garment  on  a  vase  ;  and  it  is  its  absence 
that  accounts  for  the  poor  copies  of  the  figure  of  Aphrodite  in 
later  times,  the  only  ones  extant  to-day. 

The  winged  figure  reminds  one  of  Praxitelean  statues  of 


222  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Eros.  Its  execution,  however,  is  not  good.  Especially  poor 
is  its  right  foot,  which  the  sculptor  found  impossible  to  place 
correctly  at  right  angles  with  the  background.  He  ought  to 
have  known  that  on  a  rounded  surface  this  could  not  be  done  ; 
for  if  the  foot  seemed  to  be  right  in  front,  it  could  not  seem  to 
be  so  either  from  the  right  or  from  the  left. 

The  successful  pose  of  Hermes,  designated  as  such  by  his 
herald's  staff,  is  best  appreciated  when  he  is  compared  with 
the  youth  on  the  relief  in  Boston,  Plate  183. 

The  more  one  studies  the  Ephesos  relief,  the  less  one  feels 
inclined  to  credit  one  of  the  great  masters  with  its  design  and 
execution,  but  the  more  one  admires  the  skill  and  the  sense 
of  what  is  beautiful  and  graceful  even  in  men  of  lesser  dis- 
tinction, such  as  would  probably  have  been  employed  in 
decorating  the  drums  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
columns  of  the  temple  of  Artemis. 

PLATE  219.  Bacchic  Relief.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples.  For 
a  very  similar  relief  in  the  British  Museum,  see  Robinson,  575  ;  Man- 
sell,  photograph,  861 .  Compare  also  the  Bacchic  relief,  Berlin  Museum, 
Catalogue,  No.  850. 

The  Mainad  by  Skopas,  a  very  famous  work  of  antiquity, 
was  fully  draped,  so  that  the  Mainad  on  this  relief  cannot  be  a 
direct  copy  of  his  work.  But  since  the  abandon  with  which 
the  head  is  thrown  back  characterized  also  the  statue  of 
Skopas,  this  important  detail  of  the  relief  may  be  his  inven- 
tion. The  motive  of  the  half  open  gown '  also  is  not  alien 
to  the  cycle  of  Skopadean  works,  for  it  occurs  on  the  Maus- 
solleion  frieze,  Plate  2293,  with  which  Skopas  had  a  more  or 
less  intimate  connection. 

1  The  best  known  instance  of  a  statue  in  which  this  motive  is  em- 
ployed is  the  Aphrodite  Kallipyge  in  Naples,  Reinach  I,  328,  1-3. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  223 

The  remaining  two  figures  are  inspired  by  statues  of  other 
men.  The  face  of  the  satyr  to  the  left  on  the  London  copy 
resembles  that  of  the  "  Marble  Faun,"  while  his  entire  body 
suggests  a  statue  not  dissimilar  to  the  so-called  Narkissos, 
Plate  194.  In  the  panther  skins  of  both  satyrs  one  sees  a 
reminiscence  of  one  of  the  Parthenon  metopes,  Plate  i6ia. 

All  this  implies  that  the  composition  of  the  Naples  relief  is 
not  the  work  of  one  of  the  great  masters ;  an  inference  which 
becomes  a  certainty  when  one  compares  the  Naples  copy  with 
the  one  in  London,  and  looks  in  addition  to  the  Berlin  relief. 
This  last  relief  suggests  that  there  were  originally  more  than 
three  figures  in  the  procession.  Assuming  this  actually  to 
have  been  the  case,  then  the  unpleasantly  empty  space  be- 
tween the  two  satyrs  finds  an  explanation  ;  the  Mainad  and 
one  of  the  satyrs  are  out-dancing  the  rest.  The  London 
copyist  has  endeavored  to  improve  on  the  design,  and  has 
drawn  the  three  figures  evenly  grouped.  A  few  still  remain- 
ing empty  spaces  he  has  filled  with  the  paws  of  the  panther 
skins,  which  are,  however,  given  more  freely  to  the  wind. 

In  modelling,  both  reliefs  are  about  equal.  The  Mainad  is 
better  in  Naples.  Her  feet  are  especially  poor  in  London. 
The  satyr  to  the  left  is  better  in  London.  Not  only  is  his 
face  more  finished,  but  his  "thyrsos"  (staff)  is  better  exe- 
cuted. In  the  original,  doubtless,  the  staff  was  not  perfectly 
straight.  Such  a  straight  line  would  have  been  awkward  in 
close  proximity  to  the  body  of  the  satyr  with  its  frequent 
deviations  from  it.  It  is,  however,  as  the  London  copy  shows, 
perfectly  possible  to  carve  the  thyrsos  so  that  it  conforms  to 
the  lines  of  the  body,  and  yet  appears  to  the  casual  glance 
to  be  straight.  This  nicety  of  design  is  completely  lost  in  the 
Naples  copy. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  London  and  the  Naples 
reliefs  are  entirely  independent  copies  of  three  figures,  once 


224  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

forming  part  of  a  more  extended  design,  and  possibly,  in  one 
case,  inspired  by  the  art  of  Skopas. 

The  Niobe  Group. 
PLATE  220.    Niobe  and  Her  Youngest  Daughter.    Uffizi  Gallery, 

Florence.  Discovered  in  1583  in  Rome,  exhibited  first  in  the  Villa 
Medici  in  Rome,  since  1775  in  Florence,  and  since  1795  in  the  hall 
which  was  especially  built  for  the  Niobe  group.  Restorations :  On  Niobe, 
the  nose,  the  lower  lip  and  part  of  the  upper  lip,  the  left  forearm,  and 
an  adjacent  piece  of  the  drapery,  the  right  hand  and  a  small  part  of 
the  arm,  also  minor  parts  of  the  drapery.  On  the  daughter,  the  nose, 
the  right  arm,  the  left  hand  (the  left  arm  was  broken  but  is  antique),  the 
left  foot.  The  head  and  neck  of  Niobe  and  both  of  her  arms  were 
carved  of  separate  pieces.  Amelung,  174;  Reinach  I,  313,  2. 

PLATE  221.  NiObid  Chlaramonti.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Discovered,  exact  date  unknown,  near  Tivoli.  Formerly  in  the  Garden 
of  the  Quirinal.  There  are  no  restorations.  Helbig,  73;  F.  W.  1261 ; 
Robinson,  512;  Reinach  I,  310,  5. 

PLATE  222.  Niobid.  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence.  Copy 
of  the  same  original  which  is  reproduced  in  the  statue  in  the  Vatican, 
Plate  221.  For  place  and  date  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate 
220.  Restorations:  the  nose,  the  left  hand  and  part  of  the  left  elbow, 
also  both  feet  and  bits  of  the  drapery.  The  right  arm  and  shoulder 
were  broken,  but  have  been  put  together  of  antique  pieces.  The  head 
and  bust  were  carved  separately  and  inserted.  Amelung,  184;  Reinach 
1,312,4. 

PLATE  223.  Dead  Niobid.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Once  in  the  Casa  Maffei  in 
Rome.  Acquired  for  Munich  from  the  collection  in  the  Palazzo 
Bevitaqua  in  Verona  in  1811.  Restorations:  the  right  foot  and  the 
front  part  of  the  left  foot,  the  fore  finger  of  the  left  hand,  the  right 
hand  and  wrist,  and  practically  the  entire  base,  including  the  spear, 
which  is  an  inappropriate  addition.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  269; 
Reinach  I,  315,  2.  For  the  two  replicas  of  the  statue,  the  one  in  Flor- 
ence, see  Amelung,  185;  Reinach  I.  314,  5;  and  the  one  in  Dresden, 
see  Hettner,  196;  Reinach  I,  315,  3. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  225 

PLATE  224a.  NiObld.  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence.  For 
date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  220.  Restora- 
tions :  part  of  the  nose  and  lower  lip,  the  left  arm,  the  right  lower  arm, 
the  right  foot,  the  part  of  the  garment  extended  by  the  right  arm,  and 
several  minor  details  of  the  garment.  Amelung,  182  ;  Reinach  I,  312, 
3.  The  motive  of  the  figure  is  understood  from  the  fragment  in  the 
Vatican,  Text  Illustration,  41. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION,  41.  Fragment  of  Group  of  Son  and 
Daughter  Of  Niobe.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Date  and  place 
of  discovery  unknown.  Restorations  :  the  left  fore  finger  and  the  left 
foot  of  the  girl.  The  head  of  the  girl  is  antique,  but  belongs  to  an- 
other statue.  Helbig,  209;  F.  W.,  1262;  Reinach  I,  480,  6. 

PLATE  224b.  NiObid.  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence.  For 
date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  220.  Restora- 
tions :  part  of  the  nose,  the  lips,  the  right  ear,  parts  of  the  neck,  the 
right  lower  arm  and  parts  of  the  garment.  The  head,  the  left  arm 
and  the  adjacent  part  of  the  garment  were  broken,  but  are  antique. 
Amelung,  181 ;  Reinach  I,  312,  2. 

PLATE  225a.    Tutor  (Paidagogos)  and  Youngest  Son  of  Niobe. 

Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris.  Found,  date  not  published  (or  unknown  ?), 
in  Soissons.  Now  in  the  Louvre.  Restorations :  the  head  of  the 
tutor  and  various  other  parts.  The  arms  are  antique.  Reinach  I,  316, 
3.  For  a  replica  in  Florence  of  the  boy  alone  see  Amelung,  176; 
Reinach  1,314,  2  ;  and  for  one  in  Rome,  Helbig,  383  ;  Reinach  I,  376,  2. 

PLATE  225b.  Tutor  Of  Niobe  Group.  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery, 
Florence.  For  date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate 
220.  Restorations :  the  head,  both  arms,  a  piece  of  the  calf  of  the 
right  leg,  the  left  heel  and  the  rocky  edge  of  the  base.  Amelung,  183 ; 
Reinach  I,  314,  6. 

Bibliography  to  the  Niobe  Group. 

The  bibliography  to  the  Niobe  group  is  large.  It  is  col- 
lected in  Stark,  Niobe  und  die  Niobiden,  Leipzig,  1863.  Im- 
portant additions  since  1863  are  collected  in  Overbeck  II,  p. 
89,  note  i.  Still  later  additions  are  :  Amelung,  Fiihrer  durch 


226  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

die  Antiken  von  Florenz,  pp.  iisff. ;  Klein,  Praxiteles,  the 
chapter  on  the  Niobids ;  and  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  283^".  The 
best  account  of  the  unsolved  problems  in  connection  with  the 
Niobe  group  is  given  in  Overbeck  II,  pp.  ySff.  For  brief 
mentions  of  the  group  in  ancient  literature,  see  Pliny  36,  28, 
and  Anthologia  Graca,  IV,  181,  298;  or  Overbeck,  S.  Q., 
1180  and  1284. 

Even  in  Roman  times  the  name  of  the  maker  of  the  Niobe 
group  was  forgotten.  Only  a  tradition  had  survived,  accord- 
ing to  Pliny,  to  the  effect  that  either  Praxiteles  or  Skopas  had 
made  it,  but  nothing  more  definite  was  known.  We  are  more 
familiar  to-day  with  the  styles  of  these  two  men  than  was 
Pliny ;  we  are  more  critical ;  and  yet  we  have  not  come  any 
nearer  than  he  to  solving  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  the 
Niobe  group. 

Three  views  prevail.  First,  the  beauty  of  the  design,  the 
"  loveliness  "  of  the  figures,  indicate  Praxiteles ;  second,  the 
pathos  of  the  occasion,  the  dignified  bearing  under  agonizing 
conditions  suggests  Skopas ;  and  third,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
group  distinctly  characteristic  of  either  artist  beyond  the 
family  resemblance  that  must  exist  in  works  belonging  to  the 
same  period,  and  if  Pliny  had  not  mentioned  the  names  of 
these  artists  —  which  he  did  to  cover  his  ignorance  —  we 
should  not  have  thought  of  connecting  the  Niobe  group  with 
either.  The  pros  and  cons  of  all  of  these  views  are  fully  dis- 
cussed in  the  bibliography  given  above.  Suffice  it  to  state 
that  none  can  be  definitely  proved,  and  that  the  more  con- 
servative scholars  have  come  to  look  upon  the  artist  of  the 
Niobe  group  as  a  man  inspired  by  both  Praxiteles  and  Skopas. 

Equally  impossible  is  it  to  agree  on  the  original  appearance 
of  the  group  and  the  number  of  figures  it  contained.  Niobe 
had  seven  sons  and  seven  daughters,  so  that  if  the  artist  fol- 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  227 

lowed  the  myth  correctly,  there  ought  to  be  at  least  fifteen 
figures  in  the  group.  The  presence  of  the  tutor  adds  one 
more,  and  suggests  the  possible  presence  of  one  or  several 
others,  namely,  a  nurse  and  attendants.  This,  together  with 
the  fact  that  several  figures  may  have  been  doubled  up,  — 
Furtwangler,  for  instance,  suggests  a  sister  bending  over  the 
dead  boy  in  Munich  —  makes  it  impossible  to  reconstruct  the 
group.  Only  one  thing  seems  to  be  sure ;  the  action  took 
place  from  the  two  corners  toward  the  center,  where  Niobe 
stood,  singled  out  by  her  gigantic  size. 

The  original  place  where  the  group  was  erected  is  another 
point  of  contention.  In  Rome  it  stood  at  the  time  of  Pliny  in 
some  connection  with  a  temple.  A  pediment  has,  therefore, 
been  suggested  as  its  original I  place.  Against  this  view  three 
facts  may  be  strongly  urged.  First,  bases  of  rocks  are  found 
in  practically  all  the  statues.  Rocks,  however,  are  out  of 
place 2  in  a  pediment,  and  although  occasional  exceptions 
occur,  it  is  hardly  credible  that  the  entire  design  should  be 
built  on  such  exceptions.  Secondly,  the  extant  figures  are  too 
numerous  to  fill  the  triangular  space  of  any  Greek  temple 
without  making  Niobe  in  the  center  appear  small  in  spite  of 
her  colossal  size.  And,  finally,  the  group  does  not  seem  to 
belong  to  any  temple.  The  only  gods  in  whose  sanctuaries 
the  Niobe  legend  would  offer  a  good  subject  for  decoration 
are  Leto  and  her  children,  Artemis  and  Apollo.  These  gods, 
however,  slew  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Niobe  and  turned  her 
into  stone.  A  representation  of  this  myth,  in  which  the  appeal 
to  the  spectator's  pity  for  the  victims  is  stronger  than  that  to 
his  veneration  of  the  gods,  as  is  the  case  in  this  group,  is 


1  The  extant  figures  cannot  be  originals.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
Pliny  saw  in  Rome  the  originals  or  these  copies,  which  were  excavated 
in  Rome  and  are  now  in  Florence.  2  For  the  requirements  of  pedi- 
mental  sculpture  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  iSoff. 


228  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

obviously  out  of  place  in  temples  designed  to  do  honor  to 
these  deities.  More  appropriate  than  the  pediment  might 
have  been  the  court  connected  with  the  sanctuary,  for  it  seems 
that  the  ancients  were  not  always  considerate  of  the  feelings 
of  their  gods  in  respect  to  the  statues  which  they  erected  in 
the  outer  precincts. 

The  idea  of  the  group,  many  believe,  was  suggested  by  the 
performance  of  the  Niobe  legend  as  a  tragedy  in  a  Greek 
theatre.  Sophokles  wrote  a  lost  tragedy  called  Niobe,  where 
the  scene  was  laid  in  Thebes,  and  the  sons  died  in  the  gym- 
nasium. The  rock  bases,  however,  speak  against  his  tragedy 
as  having  suggested  the  extant  group ;  and  since  we  know 
that  other  Niobe  tragedies  were  written  later,  it  is  believed 
the  artist  followed  one  of  these.  If  the  scene  was  laid  in 
the  mountains,  the  bases  of  rocks  would  at  once  find  their 
explanation.  It  also  has  been  urged  that  the  original  group 
was  erected  in  a  park.  This,  however,  is  merely  a  suggestion, 
which  it  is  equally  as  impossible  to  prove  as  to  disprove. 

The  group  now  in  Florence  is  the  only  approximately  com- 
plete group.  Its  figures,  however,  are  by  no  means  the  best. 
The  Niobid  Chiaramonti,  Plate  221,  in  Rome,  is  better  than 
the  replica  in  Florence,  Plate  222  ;  the  dead  son  in  Munich  is 
far  more  beautifully  modelled  than  the  same  figure  in  Flor- 
ence ;  and  the  head  of  Niobe  in  Brocklesby  Park,1  England, 
is  much  superior  to  that  of  the  Florentine  statue.  Another 
peculiarity  of  the  Florence  group  is  the  fact  that  figures,  once 
closely  united,  are  carved  separate,  as,  for  instance,  the  tutor, 
Plate  225b,  and  the  son,  Plate  2243,  which  one  ought  to  com- 
pare with  the  group  in  the  Louvre,  Plate  225a,  and  the  frag- 
ment in  the  Vatican,  Text  Illustration  41.  This  latter  fragment 
is  especially  interesting,  for  without  its  help  it  would  have  been 

1  For  a  picture  see  frontispiece  in  Knackf uss-Zimmerman,  Vol.  I. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  229 

difficult  to  explain  the  folds  of  the  garment  on  the  knee  of  the 
boy.  They  are  held  there  by  the  arm  of  his  sister,  and  with- 
out it  are  impossible. 

A  very  telling  comparison  is  made  between  the  statues  of 
the  daughter,  Plates  221  and  222.  In  view  of  the  inferiority 
of  the  workmanship  of  the  Florentine  figure,  Amelung  sug- 
gests that  in  it  we  have  the  more  accurate  copy,  while  the 
Chiaramonti  sister  betokens  the  freer  adaptation  of  the  type 
at  the  hands  of  a  better  sculptor.  This  remark  of  Amelung 
opens  a  wide  field  of  speculation,  for  he  contrasts  the  finery  of 
the  garment  of  the  figure  in  Florence  with  the  almost  fifth 
century  grandeur  of  the  figure  in  Rome.  The  earlier  element 
in  the  Chiaramonti  Niobid  has  been  noted  before,  and  the 
writer  himself  in  his  "  Greek  Sculpture,  Its  Spirit  and  Prin- 
ciples," has  endeavored  to  enforce  it  by  reproducing  the 
statue  on  the  same  plate  with  those  of  "  Nike,"  and  "  Iris  " 
of  the  East  Pediment  of  the  Parthenon.1  If  Amelung  is  right, 
however,  in  believing  that  the  Chiaramonti  figure  does  not 
reproduce  the  appearance  of  the  original,  is  it  not  perhaps 
more  probable  that  the  original  Niobid  herself  was  based  on 
an  earlier  type,  and  that  this  type  is  preserved  in  the  Chiara- 
monti figure,  than  that  a  later  copyist  should  have  been  able  to 
transform  the  Niobid,  which  is  correctly  copied  in  Florence,  so 
that  he  struck  the  true  note  of  an  art  unknown  to  him  ? 

The  wonderful  pathos  of  the  group,  and  withal,  its  moder- 
ation, are  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  2836%  where  atten- 
tion is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  the  artist  has  wisely  refrained 
from  representing  the  gods  as  visibly  present ;  "  the  flying 
arrows  are  more  unerring  since  we  do  not  know  whence  they 
come." 


1  E.  von  Mach,  Plate  XIX. 


230  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  226.  Youth  from  Subiaco.  Of  marble.  Terme,  Rome. 
Found  in  the  ruins  of  the  Villa  of  Nero  at  Subiaco  in  1884.  Helbig, 
1063;  Reinach  II,  419,7.  For  various  interpretations  see  de  Rider, 
Rev.  Arch.,  XXXI,  1897,  pp.  265^.  (he  says  the  statue  is  a  ball-player) ; 
Kalkmann,  y<2/£r3#f,&  X,  1895,  pp.  46ff.  (he  says  it  is  a  runner)  ;  Korte, 
Jahrbuch  XI,  1896,  pp.  nff.  (he  says  it  is  Hylas  in  water)  ;  Kalkmann, 
Jahrbuch  XI,  1896,  pp.  I97ff.(  defends  his  view  expressed  before; 
Petersen,  Jahrbuch  XI,  1896,  pp.  aoaff.,  sides  with  Korte,  who  denies 
that  the  base  is  suggestive  of  water  (he  says  that  the  statue  is  a  runner 
with  a  lasso  and  adduces  pictures  of  corresponding  figures). 

This  statue  was  first  claimed  as  a  Niobid,  but  owing  to  the 
differences  in  execution  between  it  and  the  Niobids,  and 
largely  also  because  of  the  absence  of  drapery  —  all  the 
Niobids  have  at  least  some  garment  against  which  the  nude  is 
relieved  —  this  view  has  been  abandoned  without  its  having 
become  possible  to  reach  a  universally  satisfactory  interpre- 
tation of  the  statue.  Several  suggestions  are  given  above. 
Korte's  view  that  the  top  of  the  base  represents  water  is 
not  so  untenable  as  his  opponents  believe.  Korte  himself 
refers  to  the  base  of  the  Nile,  Plate  278,  and  he  might  have 
added  the  waves  on  the  base  of  Helios  in  the  East  Pedi- 
ment of  the  Parthenon,1  Plate  1403.  His  interpretation,  how- 
ever, of  the  statue  as  Hylas  drawn  into  the  water  by  the 
nymphs  is  not  convincing. 

Of  the  other  two  interpretations,  that  of  a  runner  and  that 
of  a  ball-player,  the  former  seems  to  have  more  in  its  favor. 
When  Kalkmann,  however,  sees  in  the  figure  a  work  of  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century,  he  is  misled  by  the  pose,  which  he 
explains  as  a  last  occurrence  of  the  archaic  mode  of  represent- 
ing running  as  half  kneeling.2  If  Kalkmann  were  correct, 

1  Waves  are  seen  both  on  the  side  and  on  the  top  of  the  base  be- 
tween the  arms  of  Helios. 
2  See  the  discussion  to  the  Kneeling  Spearman  of  Aigina,  Plate  78. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  231 

the  youth  from  Subiaco  would  be  contemporaneous  with  the 
figures  reproduced  on  Plates  i22ff.,  and  would  copy  a  device 
that  had  gone  out  of  use  before  the  Aigina  or  Olympia  figures 
were  carved,  Plates  •jSff.  and  840°.  This  is  impossible.  The 
beautifully  soft  flesh  of  the  Subiaco  youth  finds  no  parallel  in 
the  fifth  century.  He  is  unmistakably  a  product  of  the  spirit  of 
the  fourth  century.  The  action  of  the  figure  is  full  of  energy 
and  pregnant  with  the  determination  to  succeed.  This  ap- 
pears nowhere  clearer  than  when  it  is  contrasted  with  the 
hopeless  and  aimless  rushing  about  of  the  Niobids. 

PLATE  227.  So-called  Ilioneus.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek,  Munich. 
Discovered,  probably  in  the  sixteenth  century,  in  Rome.  It  changed 
hands  frequently  until  it  was  bought  in  1814  by  crown  prince  Ludwig 
of  Bavaria.  There  are  no  restorations.  Thorwaldsen  was  asked  to 
restore  the  statue  but  declined,  and  the  restoration  in  plaster  by 
Tenerani  did  not  meet  with  approval.  The  holes  in  the  arms  and  in 
the  neck  are  not  antique.  They  served  for  the  attachment  of  a  plaster 
head  and  plaster  arms  before  the  statue  was  acquired  for  Munich. 
Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  270;  Robinson,  501  ;  Reinach  I,  316,  5. 

Ilioneus  was  the  last  of  the  sons  of  Niobe  to  die,  pitied  even 
by  Apollo,  so  that  his  name  seemed  appropriate  to  the  lovely 
and  finely  modelled  statue  of  the  kneeling  boy  in  Munich  as 
long  as  this  boy  was  identified  as  a  Niobid.  The  statue  can, 
however,  have  no  connection  with  the  Niobids,  for  it  has  no 
drapery  nor  does  its  base  "  represent  a  rocky  territory. 

The  statue  is  not  an  original,2  but  an  unusually  good 'copy, 
which  has  retained  much  of  the  wonderful  grace  and  softness 
of  flesh  of  the  statue  it  reproduces.  "  The  spirit  of  Praxiteles 
is  in  this  body,"  says  Furtwangler,  3  and  adds,  "Compare  this 

1  The  "Ilioneus  "  base  is  antique.  2  Furtwangler  denies  Robinson's 
assertion  that  the  surface  has  been  worn  somewhat  by  polishing  and 
Cleaning.  3  Catalogue,  No.  270,  p.  270. 


232  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

body  with  that  of  the  Spinario  (Plate  72)  if  you  desire  to 
realize  the  contrast  which  exists  between  the  somewhat  harsh 
endeavor  of  the  older  Greek  art  to  be  true,  and  the  later 
craving  for  soft  and  delicate  beauty." 

The  Sculptures  of  the  Maussolleion. 

Maussollos,  satrap  of  Karia,  sometimes  called  king,  died  in 
353  B.  C.  Artemisia,  his  wife  and  sister,  succeeded  him  on 
the  throne,  and  spent  the  two  years  of  her  reign  —  she  is  said 
to  have  died  in  351  of  a  broken  heart,  longing  for  her  hus- 
band —  erecting  a  tomb  for  Maussollos  of  such  splendor  that 
it  has  never  been  equaled.  It  attained  great  fame  and  the 
word  "  mausoleum  '  "  to  this  day  designates  a  fine  sepulchral 
structure. 

The  architects  were  Satyros  and  Pythios,  and  the  sculptors, 
according  to  Pliny,2  Leochares,  Timotheos,  Bryaxis  and 
Skopas.  Vitruviuss  mentions  also  Praxiteles,  while  he  ex- 
presses his  doubts  as  to  Timotheos.  Certain  incongruities  in 
the  statements  of  both  writers  have  led  modern  scholars  to 
place  little  reliance  on  their  lists  of  sculptors. 

The  final  destruction  of  the  building  is  due  to  the  Christians. 
In  1402  the  Knights  of  St.  John  took  possession  of  Halikarn- 
assos,  the  ancient  capital  of  Karia.  It  is  not  known  how  well- 
preserved  the  monument  then  was,  but  an  account  of  the  year 
1522  has  come  down  to  us.  It  was  written  by  Knight  de  la 
Tourette  of  Lyons  and  reads  in  part  as  follows  :  4  "  The  knights 
on  their  arrival  began  to  seek  for  material  for  lime  and  found 
nothing  more  suitable  and  convenient  than  certain  steps  of 
white  marble  which  rose  up  in  the  form  of  a  platform  in  a  field 

1  Mausoleum  is  the  Latin  spelling  of  Maussolleion.  2  Pliny,  N.  If., 
36,  3of. ;  S.  Q.,  1177.  3Vitruvius  VII,  12  ;  S.  Q.,  1178.  4  Quoted  from 
British  Museum  Catalogue  II,  p.  67. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  233 

near  the  harbour."  The  knights  then  proceeded  to  dig  into 
the  platform  and  the  account  continues  :  "  After  four  or  five 
days  they  found  an  opening  into  a  large  square  chamber, 
elaborately  adorned  with  an  architectural  order,  coloured  mar- 
bles and  reliefs,  all  of  which  the  finders  admired  and  de- 
stroyed." (  !) 

In  1846  those  slabs  that  were  built  into  the  castle  were  re- 
moved to  England  by  Lord  Stratford  de  Redcliffe,  then  Sir 
Stratford  Canning,  while  excavations  on  the  site  of  the  monu- 
ment itself  were  begun  in  1856  and  continued  in  1865.  One 
slab,  Plate  228,  was  acquired  from  Genoa  in  1865,  and  three 
other  fragments  were  added  to  the  British  Museum  collection 
in  1876  and  1879. 

For  a  detailed  discussion  of  tho  architecture  of  the  Maussol- 
leion  see  the  British  Museum  Catalogue  II,  pp.  708".,  and  the 
many  suggested  restorations,  pp.  76  and  77.  One  of  them  is 
reproduced  as  Text  Illustration  40. 

The  fullest  bibliography  to  the  Maussolleion  is  also  found  in 
the  British  Museum  Catalogue,  pp.  65 ff.  The  most  con- 
venient arrangement  of  the  sculptures  is  in  Overbeck  II,  pp. 
98ff.,  and  especially  fig.  177. 

The  several  sets  of  sculpture  discovered  from  the  Maussol- 
leion are  : 

1.  A   frieze   representing   a   battle    between   Greeks   and 
Amazons.     (Plates  228-230.) 

2.  A  frieze  representing  a  battle  with  the  Centaurs.     This 
frieze  is  poorly  executed.     (Not  represented  in  this  collec- 
tion.) 

3.  A  small  frieze  representing  a  continuous  row  of  chariots. 
It  is  in  part  of  excellent  workmanship,  Plate  231. 

4.  A  set  of  panels,  possibly  the  covering  slabs  of  the  coffers 
of  the  ceiling  of  the  peristyle.     (Not  represented  in  this. col- 
lection.) 


234  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

5.  Several  lions.     (Not  represented  in  this  collection.) 

6.  Fragments  of  a  colossal  four  horse  chariot.     (Not  rep- 
resented in  this  collection.) 

7.  A  colossal  group  of  Maussollos  and  Artemisia,  Plate  404. 

8.  Various  fragments  of  statues.     (Not  represented  in  this 
collection.) 

PLATE  228.    Slab  of  the  Large  Frieze  of  the  Maussolleion. 

British  Museum,  London.  Formerly  in  the  Villa  di  Negro  at  Genoa, 
to  which  place  it  was  probably  transported  from  Budrum  by  one  of  the 
knights  of  St.  John,  some  time  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  was  pur- 
chased from  the  Marchese  Serra  in  1865.  British  Museum  Catalogue 
II,  p.  95,  and  No.  1022 ;  Overbeck  II,  fig.  171,  Series  IV,  Nos.  3  and  4. 

PLATES  229a,  229b,  230a,  and  230b.  Four  Slabs  of  the  Large 

Frieze  Of  the  MauSSOlleion.  British  Museum,  London.  For  date  and 
circumstances  of  discovery  see  above,  introductory  remarks  to  the 
Maussolleion.  British  Museum  Catalogue,  1014,  1015,  1006,  1020; 
Overbeck  II,  Series  III,  3,  4,  and  5,  6;  Series  IV,  I,  2;  Series  I,  I,  3. 

No  serious  student  of  the  large  Maussolleion  frieze  fails  to 
see  great  discrepancies  in  the  several  extant  slabs.  Plate  230!), 
for  instance,  impresses  one  as  on  a  lower  artistic  plane  than 
either  slabs  on  Plate  229.  It  is,  therefore,  natural  that  one 
should  endeavor  to  classify  the  entire  series,  and,  if  possible, 
distinguish  in  the  several  groups  the  styles  of  definite  artists. 
Pliny '  mentions  four  of  them :  Skopas  for  the  east  side, 
Leochares  for  the  west,  Bryaxis  for  the  north,  and  Timotheos 
for  the  south.  There  were  several  friezes  encircling  the  Maus- 
solleion. It  does  not  seem  likely,  therefore,  that  these  four 
artists  should  have  divided  the  work  so  that  all  the  decorations 
on  one  side  were  made  by  one  man.  A  much  more  rational 
distribution  of  labor  would  have  called  for  the  services  of  these 
men  on  separate  friezes.  There  were,  moreover,  many  statues 

1  Pliny,  N.  H.,  36,  30;  S.  Q.,  1177. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  235 

erected  in  and  about  the  building,  so  that,  if  we  prefer  to  be- 
lieve that  Pliny's  statement  is  based  on  facts,  we  may  assume 
that  it  has  reference  to  these  statues  and  not  to  the  friezes. 
To  look,  therefore,  for  the  styles  of  these  several  men  in  the 
slabs  of  the  Amazon  frieze  is  a  mistake,  especially  since  it  is 
impossible  to  assign  the  slabs  to  their  original  sides,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  east  side.  All  the  slabs  of  Over- 
beck's  group  III  (Plates  22ga.  and  22gb  are  samples  of  them) 
were  found  east  of  the  Maussolleion.  They  are  excellent,  full 
of  impetuosity,  and  of  fine  modelling  ;  in  short,  they  are  worthy 
of  Skopas.  Overbeck's  group  I,  however,  of  which  Plate  23ob 
is  a  sample,  is  so  faulty  in  design  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
see  in  it  the  work  of  any  of  the  other  three  artists,  all  of  whom 
were  men  of  high  reputation. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  attempt  to  assign  these  slabs  to 
different  men  must  be  given  up,1  although  it  is  still  possible  to 
group  them  according  to  internal  evidence  in  four  separate 
classes.  This  has  been  done  by  Brunn2  and  elaborated  by 
Overbeck  (II,  pp.  io6ff.). 

The  first  group  (Plate  23ob)  is  distinguished  by  many 
figures  being  shown  in  a  back  view,  which  is  a  device  that 
adds  interest  to  a  composition,  if  it  is  used  sparingly,  as,  for 
instance,  on  the  Athena-Nike  temple  frieze,  Plate  169,  but 
which  is  monotonous  if  it  begins  to  be  the  rule  rather  than  the 
exception,  and  is  augmented  by  other  figures  which  are  hidden 
from  view  by  large  shields.  The  group,  moreover,  contains 
several  instances  of  extremely  faulty  drawing,  a  glaring  in- 

1 A  recent  examination  of  the  sides  and  the  backs  of  the  slabs  in  the 
British  Museum  has  conclusively  proved  that  Brunn's  attribution  of  the 
slabs  to  the  four  different  men  is  untenable. 

2  For  the  discussion  of  Brunn's  four  classes  see  the  bibliography  in 
Overbeck  II,  p.  in,  Note  20.  There  are  several  dissenting  voices, 
some  accepting  only  three,  others  only  two  classes. 


236  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

stance  of  which  is  the  elongated  left  leg J  of  the  fourth  warrior 
from  the  left,  Plate  230!),  while  several  figures  are  drawn 
realistically  accurate,  but  by  no  means  beautiful  in  appearance. 
The  lines  of  the  man  who  collapses  in  the  center  of  Plate  23ob 
may  be  true  to  life,  but  offer  no  satisfactory  motive  for  art. 

The  second  group  (not  reproduced  in  these  plates)  is  char- 
acterized by  the  singular  garments  worn  by  the  Amazons,  the 
oriental 2  long-sleeved  chiton  and  trousers. 

In  the  third  group  (Plate  229)  the  artist  delights  in  the 
nude.  Not  only  are  all  the  Greeks  completely  nude,  but  also 
the  Amazons  are  as  little  draped  as  possible.  In  the  figure  of 
the  standing  Amazon,  Plate  22pa,  the  drapery  merely  serves 
as  foil  to  reveal  the  beauty  of  her  body.  The  groups  of 
fighters  in  this  class  are  always  confined  to  two,  one  Greek 
and  one  Amazon.  The  design  is  beautiful  throughout  and  full 
of  power. 

The  same  high  praise  belongs  to  the  slabs  of  the  fourth 
group,  Plates  228  and  23oa,  which  is  distinguished  from  those 
of  the  preceeding  class  only  by  the  facts  that  the  Greeks,  in 
the  majority  of  cases,  are  provided  with  garments,  that  there  is 
no  apparent  desire  to  show  much  of  the  bodies  of  the  Amazons, 
and  that  the  groups  are  not  all  confined  to  only  two  parti- 
cipants. 

The  real  pathos  of  a  battle  of  men  against  beautiful  women 
is  here  shown  with  simple  straightforwardness,  surpassed 

1  The  leg  of  the  warrior  was  of  course  elongated  in  order  to  connect 
the  Amazon  behind  him  with  the  group  to  which  he  belonged.     A 
similar  instance  occurs  on  the  North  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon  (E.  von 
Mach,  Plate  XVI,  Fig.  3,  p.  230),  where  a  figure  is  drawn  entirely  out  of 
proportion  for  the  sake  of  filling  a  gap. 

2  A  similar  garment  is  worn  by  the  archer,  sometimes  called  Paris, 
in  the  south  corner  of  the  West  Pediment  of  the  temple  in  Aigina, 
Text  Illustration  13. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  237 

only  by  its  strong  appeal  to  one's  emotions.  Nothing  could 
be  more  pathetic  than  the  Amazon,  Plate  228,  succumbing  not 
only  in  body,  but  also  in  spirit  to  the  onslaught  of  the  Greek. 
She  has  sunk  on  her  knees,  and  raising  her  hand  with  a 
gesture  of  despair,  she,  the  woman  —  no  longer  the  warrior  — 
is  asking  for  mercy.  The  Greek  does  not  relent,  but  for  a 
moment  he  hesitates ;  he  looks  at  the  woman  at  his  feet,  while 
swift  as  the  wind  another  Amazon  is  swooping  down  upon 
him,  and  the  interested  spectator,  with  breath  abated,  watches 
to  see  who  will  deal  the  first  blow,  the  Greek  to  kill  his  victim, 
or  the  victim's  cruel  sister  to  teach  the  Greek  that  he  who 
pities  an  Amazon  or  receives  her  supplications  must  die.  The 
entire  Amazon  frieze  is  replete  with  such  powerful  scenes, 
but  only  the  last  two  groups  combine  with  remarkable  vigor 
of  thought  an  element  of  almost  unexcelled  beauty  of  exe- 
cution. 

From  a  technical  point  of  view,  the  Maussolleion  frieze 
illustrates  a  tendency  almost  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of 
earlier  friezes,  and  especially  the  Parthenon  frieze.  Neither 
the  fear  of  empty  spaces,  horror  vacui,  nor  the  desire  of  having 
all  the  heads  on  the  same  level,  isokephalism,  has  been  a  factor 
in  its  design.  The  freedom  of  space  granted  to  the  most 
beautiful  figures,  and  the  variety  of  levels  given  to  all  the 
heads,  add  a  special  charm  to  the  composition.  Noticeable 
also  is  the  lack  of  restraint,  best  illustrated  by  the  recoiling 
Greek,  Plate  229^  Myron  once  carved  a  figure  recoiling  be- 
fore Athena,  Plate  65.  He  only  suggested  the  intensity  of  the 
movement ;  the  Maussolleion  sculptor  actually  carved  it.  That 
he  succeeded  is  due  to  his  wonderful  gift  of  design.  The 
lines  of  the  Greek  without  his  shield  and  without  the  less  in- 
clined Amazon  in  front  of  him  would  be  not  only  not  pleasing, 
but  actually  painful. 

The  points  of  excellence  in  the  slabs  of  the  last  two  groups 


238  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

are  so  many  and  so  subtle  that  they  cannot  be  enumerated  or 
explained.  Thoughtful  observation  alone  reveals  them.  There 
is  in  the  best  of  these  slabs  not  a  detail  that,  if  noticed,  does 
not  add  both  to  the  beauty  of  the  design  and  to  the  vigor  of 
the  thought  expressed. 

PLATE  231.    Charioteer  from  the  Small  Charioteer  Frieze  of  the 

Maussolleion.  British  Museum,  London.  For  date  and  place  of  dis- 
covery see  introductory  remarks  to  the  sculptures  of  the  Maussolleion. 
British  Museum  Catalogue,  1037,  Plate  XVIII. 

This  is  the  best  preserved  figure  of  the  chariot  frieze ;  beau- 
tiful in  execution  and  imbued  with  passion.  It  is  just  the  kind 
of  a  figure  we  should  expect  of  Skopas  or  any  of  his  followers. 
His  pose  is  unlike  that  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  charioteers, 
who  remind  one  more  forcibly  of  the  Charioteer  of  Delphi,1 
Plate  60 ;  while  he  suggests  a  multitude  of  later  charioteers  on 
both  marble  reliefs  and  gems.  A  notable  instance  of  which  is 
found  on  the  cuirass  of  Augustus,  Plate  418. 

The  charioteer  from  the  Maussolleion  wears  the  long  chiton 
which  marks  the  man  who  takes  part  in  a  festival  in  honor 
of  the  gods.  The  folds  of  the  garment  suggest,  what  without 
them  would  have  been  impossible  to  express,  the  speed  of  his 
horses,  while  they  at  the  same  time,  by  means  of  contrast,  re- 
veal the  perfect  beauty  of  his  face. 

PLATE  232.    Nude  Charioteer,  "  Young:  Apollo."    Museum  of 

Fine  Arts,  Boston.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  given  in  the 
official  publication.  According  to  Klein,  Praxitclische  Studien,  p.  i, 
note  i,  who  gives  as  his  authority  Arndt  and  a  photograph  taken  when 
the  statue  was  in  the  salesrooms  of  a  dealer  in  Rome,  the  statue 
was  trovata  nel  Tevere.  Restorations  :  the  plinth,  with  the  tree-trunk, 

1  This  is  especially  true  of  the  charioteer  on  the  North  Frieze,  slab 
XXIV. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  239 

which  serves  as  a  support  for  the  figure;  the  left  foot  and  ankle;  the 
right  foot  and  leg  below  the  knee,  and  the  tip  of  the  nose  (Robinson  in 
Report  of  Trustees  of  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston,  1897,  pp.  18 
and  19).  Interesting  comparisons  are  made  between  this  statue  and 
the  athlete  in  Naples,  Plate  289,  and  the  boy  in  Berlin,  Plate  274. 

The  striking  resemblance  in  pose  between  this  figure  and 
the  charioteer  from  the  Maussolleion,  Plate  231,  has  escaped 
both  Klein  and  Robinson.  The  latter's  interpretation  of  this 
youth  as  Apollo  has  been  deservedly  attacked  by  Klein. 
Robinson  bases  his  sole  argument  on  the  resemblance  of  the 
head  of  this  statue  with  some  heads  published  by  Overbeck.1 
The  much  closer  correspondence  of  this  head  with  that  of 
Kore  in  Vienna,2  which  he  correctly  notes,  ought  to  have 
restrained  him  from  adding  another  to  the  long  list  of  mean- 
ingless Apollos. 

Klein  sees  in  the  statue  an  athlete,  one  preparing  to  jump. 
The  broken  supports  on  the  legs  of  the  statue  indicate,  he 
says,  that  they  supported  the  wrists,  and  that  the  arms,  there- 
fore, hung  down ;  the  boy  held  dumb-bells  or  weights  in  his 
hands,  which  the  ancients  used  in  order  to  add  impetus  to  the 
jump.  Klein  reaches  this  conclusion  because  he  assumes 
that  the  supports  are  parallel.  His  assumption  is  wrong. 
They  are  not  parallel,  but  diverge  outward.  They  might  well 
have  made  the  connection  with  the  sides  of  the  rim  of  a 
chariot,  provided  the  figure  is  correctly  interpreted  as  a  char- 
ioteer,—  as  in  the  light  of  Plate  231  it  certainly  seems  to  be. 
The  same  pose,  the  same  forward  inclination,  the  same  half- 
open  mouth  and  eager  look.  Shelley's  words,  which  Gardner 
appropriately  quotes  in  connection  with  the  Charioteer  from 
the  Maussolleion,  may  be  applied  also  to  him  :  — 

'Overbeck,  Apollon,  pp.  I49ff.  2 Reproduced  Klein,  Prax.  Studien 
figs.  5  and  7  j  cf.  also  Amelung  Plate  i. 


240  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Others  with  burning  eyes  lean  forth  and  drink 
With  eager  lips  the  wind  of  their  own  speed, 
As  if  the  thing  they  loved  fled  on  before, 
And  now,  even  now,  they  clasped  it. 

There  is  only  one  seemingly  plausible  objection  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Boston  youth  as  a  charioteer  and  that  is 
that  he  is  nude.  Most  charioteers  known  to-day  are  draped, 
for  reasons  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand.  They  were 
dedicatory  statues  representing  events  that  had  taken  place  in 
honor  of  the  gods.  At  such  occasions  all  persons  wore  the 
long  chiton,  unless  the  event  was  one  in  which  clothes  would 
have  proved  an  impediment,  as  in  the  gymnastic  games. 
Some  monuments  of  nude  charioteers,  however,  have  become 
known  recently,  noticeably '  the  statue  of  a  charioteer  in  the 
Palazzo  dei  Conservatori,  discovered  on  the  Esquiline  in  1874. 
(Helbig,  597  ;  Reinach  II,  536,  6.)  The  objection  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Boston  statue  as  charioteer  based  on  the 
absence  of  the  long  chiton  is,  therefore,  groundless.  Similarly 
without  foundation  is  the  objection  that  the  artificial  hairdress 
suggested  a  calmer  pastime  than  a  race.  The  hairdress  in- 
dicates the  boy,  as  Klein2  has  correctly  observed,  comparing 
it  with  a  number  of  artificially  dressed  heads  of  hair  of  playing 
boys.  If  this  explanation  seems  insufficient,  it  may  be  asked, 
is  this  elaborate  hairdress  better  adapted  to  a  jumping  athlete, 
as  Klein  would  have  it,  or  an  Apollo  preparing  to  run,  as 
Robinson  says,  than  to  a  boy  racing  his  colts? 

The  execution  of  the  statue  is  worse  than  the  photograph 
reveals,  it  is  decidedly  mediocre.  Only  the  left  profile  view  is 
satisfactory,  an  additional  reason  to  suppose  that  the  resem- 
blance to  the  charioteer  from  the  Maussolleion  is  not  acci- 
dental. 

1  For  other  nude  charioteers  see  Reinach  II,  536,  I  and  7. 

2  Pra xitdische  Studien,  p.  2. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  241 

PLATE  233.    Ganymedes  and  the  Eagle,  after  Leochares.    Of 

marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown. 
Added  to  the  Vatican  collections  by  Pope  Pius  VI  (1775-1798).  Res- 
torations: on  the  eagle,  the  head  and  the  wings;  on  Ganymedes, the 
nose,  the  chin,  the  lower  lips,  the  neck,  the  right  forearm  and  the  stick, 
nearly  the  whole  left  arm,  and  both  legs  from  the  knee  downwards,  ex- 
cept the  left  foot ;  on  the  dog,  everything  except  the  paws  and  the 
hindquarters.  Helbig,  400;  F.  W.,  1246;  Robinson,  555;  Reinach  I, 
192,  2.  For  similar  statues  see  Reinach  I,  185,  5  (London) ;  I,  192,  7 
(Vatican,  Rome) ;  I,  195,3  (Madrid).  For  statues  of  Ganymedes  and 
the  eagle  treated  differently  see  Reinach  I,  192,  6  (Naples),  etc.  For  a 
mosaic  from  Sousa,  Ganymedes  borne  down  by  the  weight  of  the  eagle, 
see  Rev.  Arch.,  XXXI,  1897,  Plates  X  and  XII ;  and  for  a  bronze  relief 
that  may  have  adorned  a  shield,  see  the  description,  .4.  _/.  A.,  VII,  1893, 
P-  389- 

Pliny,1  speaking  of  Leochares,  an  artist  of  the  second  half 
of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ,  says  :  "  He  carved  the 
eagle  so  that  the  bird  seemed  conscious  of  the  prize  he  was 
snatching  in  Ganymedes  and  of  the  importance  of  the  god  to 
whom  he  was  to  bring  him.  Laying  hold  of  the  boy  where  the 
drapery  lessened  the  sharpness  of  his  talons,  he  was  yet  careful 
not  to  hurt  him  even  by  this  gentle  touch."  This  description 
fits  the  Vatican  statue  so  well  that  there  can  be  little  doubt 
about  the  statue  being  a  copy  after  Leochares.  The  original 
was  of  bronze,  a  material  which  permitted  a  far  more  daring 
pose  than  the  marble  sculptor  could  copy.  The  heavy  tree, 
which  in  the  copy  seems  a  necessity,  was  probably  dispensed 
with  in  the  original. 

Whether  the  dog  was  part  of  the  bronze  group  is  doubtful. 
Possibly  the  copyist  introduced  him  as  a  suggestion  of  the 
disappearance  of  Ganymedes  in  the  air,  the  weight  of  the  mar- 
ble preventing  him  from  indicating  this  important  fact  in  any 
other  way. 

\N.  If.,  34,  79;  S.  Q.,  1308. 


242  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

This  observation  further  suggests  that  the  motive -of  the 
work  of  Leochares  is  not  one  that  lends  itself  to  corporeal 
representation.  It  is  not  a  proper  subject  for  sculpture. 
Sculptors  at  all  times  have  endeavored  to  break  through  the 
bounds  that  limit  the  free  exercise  of  their  fancy,  maintaining 
that  there  are  no  bounds  provided  they  have  the  skill.  They 
are  mistaken.  There  are  no  bounds  to  their  fancy,  but  there 
are  limitations r  to  their  modes  of  expression.  Some  subjects 
cannot  be  treated  in  sculpture,  others  are  ill-adapted  to  paint- 
ing, and  some  defy  representation  in  either  art. 

Lysippos  and  his  School. 

The  uncertainty  of  our  knowledge  of  the  styles  of  the 
ancient  masters  has  recently  again  been  demonstrated  in  the 
case  of  Lysippos.  Starting  with  the  singular  proportions  of 
the  Apoxyomenos  in  the  Vatican,  Plate  235,  scholars  had  be- 
gun to  agree  on  the  peculiarities  of  the  style  of  Lysippos,  to 
whom  they  assigned  the  Vatican  statue,  when  the  discovery  of 
the  Hagias  statue  in  Delphi,  threatened  to  overthrow  many  of 
their  theories.  This  statue  is  an  undoubted  work  by,  or  after, 
Lysippos,  and  must  be  reckoned  with  if  we  want  to  under- 
stand the  master.  In  proportions  it  resembles  statues  iden- 
tified with  Skopas  more  closely  than  the  Apoxyomenos.  The 
suggestion,  therefore,  has  been  made2  that  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  Apoxyomenos  with  Lysippos  cannot  stand.  This 
is  over-shooting  the  mark.  Lysippos  lived  to  be  a  very  old 
man,  and  was  perhaps  the  most  prolific  ancient  sculptor.  Is 
it  not,  therefore,  credible  that  he,  in  his  long  career,  did  not 
confine  himself  to  one  set  of  proportions,  but  that  he  began 
with  those  known  and  used  by  his  contemporaries,  and  only 

1  For  a  discussion  of  these  limitations  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  22  and 
ijiff.  2P.  Gardner,/.  H.  S.,  XXIII,  1903,  pp.  nyff. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  243 

gradually  evolved  a  distinct  type  of  his  own?  If  this  is  true, 
the  discovery  of  the  Hagias  statue  need  not  upset  all  former 
conclusions ;  it  merely  reveals  Lysippos  to  have  been  even 
more  versatile  than  was  commonly  believed. 

The  references  to  his  art  in  ancient  literature  are  numerous, 
and  not  always  very  lucid.  According  to  the  emphasis  laid 
on  the  spirit  or  the  letter  of  the  reference,  the  completed 
picture  of  Lysippos  is  more  or  less  that  of  a  revolutionary  in- 
novator, or  of  a  gifted  interpreter  of  the  spirit  that  had  moved 
his  predecessors.  The  latter  view  of  him  is  taken  in  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  zgoff.  Some  of  the  most  comprehensive  accounts 
of  him  are  found  in  Overbeck  IT,  pp.  isoff.,  and  notes,  pp. 
164(7.,  containing  an  important  bibliography;  and  in  Th.  Ho- 
molle,  B.  C.  H.,  1899,  pp.  473ff.  For  statues  of  women  re- 
cently assigned  to  Lysippos  see  Plates  2o8a  and  2o8b. 

PLATE  234.  Hagias.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Delphi.  Discovered 
in  Delphi  in  1894.  Erich  Preuner,  Ein  Delphisches  Weihgeschenk  ;  Th. 
Homolle,  B.  C.  H.,  1899,  pp.  446ff.  ;  Rev.  Arch.,  1900,  p.  383;  P. 
Gardner,/.  H.  S.,  XXIII,  1903,  pp.  Ii7ff. ;  Reinach  II,  549,  u,  (this 
picture  represents  the  statue  before  the  legs  were  found). 

This  statue  was  found  in  Delphi,  together  with  several 
others.1  Homolle  at  once  recognized  their  fourth  century 
origin.  The  freedom  of  pose  seemed  to  correspond  with  that 
of  the  Apoxyomenos,  Plate  235,  while  the  proportions,  if  not 
exactly  like  those  of  that  statue,  were  yet  sufficiently  similar  to 
point  in  the  same  direction.  A  resemblance,  on  the  other 
hand,  with  Praxitelean  or  Skopadean  works,  was  also  noted  by 
Homolle.  Together  with  the  statues,  fragments  of  a  long 
inscription  were  found. 

It  was  this  inscription  that  enabled  Erich  Preuner  to  make 

1JS.  C.  H.,  1899,  Plates  IX  and  XII. 


244  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

his  startling  discovery.  The  Hagias  statue  in  Delphi  is  a 
marble  copy  of  a  bronze  statue  by  Lysippos  in  Pharsalos,  and, 
what  is  especially  important,  a  copy  made  while  Lysippos  was 
alive,  and,  therefore,  probably  under  his  own  supervision. 

Preuner's  arguments '  are  the  acme  of  ingenuity,  but  abso- 
lutely convincing,  and  have  been  accepted  as  correct  without 
a  dissenting  voice.  It  is  impossible  to  summarize  them,  for 
they  are  built  up  of  a  multitude  of  details,  the  omission  of  any 
one  of  which  would  threaten  the  force  of  the  whole  argument. 

The  result  of  Preuner's  discovery  is  that  we  now  possess  an 
undoubted  work  of  Lysippos  and  shall,  therefore,  in  future  be 
better  able  to  appreciate  him. 

Another  valuable  lesson  is  learned  from  this  statue.  It  refers 
to  marble  copies  made  in  the  best  Greek  times.  No  clumsy 
marble  support  or  tree-trunk  mars  the  lines  of  the  composi- 
tion, only  a  very  small  piece  of  marble  near  the  right  foot 
strengthens  this  supporting  member.  How  different  from 
the  heavy  tree-trunk  in  the  Apoxyomenos,  Plate  235  !  How 
different  from  modern  practices,  where  sculptors  take  it  for 
granted  that  statues  may  be  designed  for  marble,  and  executed 
in  it,  even  if  this  is  impossible  without  the  addition  of  cumber- 
some supports  ! 

PLATE  235.  Apoxyomenos,  after  Lysippos.  Of  marble.  Vatican, 
Rome.  Found  in  1849  in  the  ruins  of  a  private  house  in  Trastevere, 
Rome.  Restorations,  by  Tenerani :  the  ringers  of  the  right  hand  and 
the  die,  the  tip  of  the  left  thumb,  parts  of  the  strigil,  and  all  the  toes. 
The  die  does  not  belong  to  the  figure ;  it  is  due  to  a  misinterpretation  of 
a  passage  in  Pliny  by  Canina,2  under  whose  instruction  Tenerani  worked, 
N.  ff.,  34,  55.  Helbig,  31 ;  F.  W.,  1264;  Robinson,  523  ;  E.  von  Mach, 

1  Preuner  starts  by  restoring  the  Delphi  inscriptions  from  two  other 
fragments,  one  contained  in  the  Diary  of  Stackelberg  in  Thessaly,  the 
other  published  by  Messrs.  Pridik  and  Sanctis. 

2  F.  W.,  1264,  p.  449,  paragraph  2  of  the  notes. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  245 

pp.  2p5ff. ;  Reinach  I,  515,  6  and  7,  and  II,  546,  2 ;  P.  Gardner,  J.  H.  S., 
XXIII,  1903,  pp.  H7ff.,  denies  the  authorship  of  Lysippos  on  the 
strength  of  the  recently  discovered  Hagias  of  Delphi.  For  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  proportions  of  the  Apoxyomenos  see  Michaelis.y.  H.  S., 
II,  1885,  pp.  355ff.,  and  Plate  XXXV,  Metrological  Relief  at  Oxford. 

The  statue  represents  a  man  scraping  the  sand  and  oil  from 
his  body.  Greek  athletes  were  in  the  habit  of  annointing 
themselves  before  the  exercises  with  oil,  and  of  sprinkling  soft 
sand  over  it,  which  they,  of  course,  removed  when  the  games 
were  over.  Lysippos  made  a  statue  of  a  man  "  scraping  him- 
self" (Apoxyomenos),  and  the  Vatican  figure  has  been  recog- 
nized as  a  copy  of  his  work  by  means  of  its  lengthy  propor- 
tions ;  for  it  was  a  peculiarity  of  Lysippos,  according  to  Pliny ' 
to  make  the  heads  of  his  figures  smaller  and  their  bodies  more 
slender  and  "  dryer "  than  his  predecessors,  a  device  which 
made  his  figures  look  decidedly  taller.  How  true  this  is  of  the 
Apoxyomenos  is  best  seen  when  he  is  compared  with  the 
Doryphoros  after  Polykleitos,  Plate  113. 

The  easy  grace  of  the  statue  of  Lysippos  is  appreciated 
even  in  the  Roman  copy,  with  its  added  tree-trunk  and  the 
cumbersome  supports  for  the  extended  arm,  the  beginning  of 
which  is  still  seen  over  the  right  knee.  Tenerani,  who  re- 
stored the  statue,  fortunately  possessed  enough  skill  to  do 
without  this  support.  He  accomplished  a  difficult  feat,  the 
very  difficulty  of  which  accounts  for  the  fact  that  there  are  no 
other  replicas  of  the  statue  extant,2  although  the  original  was 
carried  to  Rome  and  was  there  one  of  the  most  famous  statues. 

The  conclusions  which  it  is  possible  to  draw  from  this 
Apoxyomenos  as  to  the  style  of  Lysippos  are  fully  discussed  in 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  295/1. 

*  N.  If.,  34,  65.  2  The  only  possible  exception  is  a  torso  in  Athens, 
Reinach  II,  819,  i. 


246  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  236.  Herakles  Farnese.  Colossal  statue  of  marble. 
Museum,  Naples.  Discovered  in  1540  in  the  Baths  of  Caracal  la  in 
Rome.  Since  1790  in  Naples.  Restorations  :  the  tip  of  the  nose,  half 
of  the  left  lower  arm,  the  left  hand,  and  the  right  hand '  with  the  apples. 
F.  W.,  1265;  Overbeck  II,  pp.  449ff. ;  Reinach  I,  465,  I,  3.  For  the 
good  replica  in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence,  see  Amelung,  40;  Reinach 
I,  474,  i  ;  and  for  the  poor  replica  with  the  important  antique  inscrip- 
tion, "  the  work  of  Lysippos,"  in  the  Pitti  Palace,  Florence,  Amelung, 
186;  Reinach  II,  210,  5.  For  a  coin  with  the  name  of  Alexander, 
struck  not  later  than  300  B.  C.,  on  which  the  type  of  the  Herakles 
Farnese  appears,  see  Numismatic  Chronicle,  Third  Series,  Vol.  Ill, 
1883,  Plate  I,  5;  and  for  a  colossal  replica  found  together  with  the 
statue,  Plate  290,  on  the  bottom  of  the  sea  off  Antikythera ;  Ephcmeris, 
1902,  supplementary  Plate  B.  7. 

That  the  type  of  this  Herakles  was  invented  by  Lysippos  is 
proved  by  two  facts;  the  inscription2  reading,  "the  work  of 
Lysippos,"  on  the  replica  in  the  Pitti  Palace,  Florence ;  and 
the  picture  of  the  statue  on  a  coin  with  the  name  of  Alexander 
struck  not  later  than  300  B.  C.  The  coin  proves  that  the 
type  of  the  Herakles  Farnese  belongs  to  the  fourth  century,  ^ 
so  that  all  the  arguments  formerly  advanced  against  its  being 
a  work  of  Lysippos  are  groundless ;  for  they  were  based  on 
the  assumption  that  the  statue  showed  indications  of  a  much 
later  style.  This,  together  with  the  ancient  inscription  on  the 
Pitti  Palace  replica,  appears  to  be  an  irrefutable  argument. 

Lysippos  was  especially  fond  of  the  variety  of  motives  which 
the  legend  of  Herakles  offered.  Herakles  seated,  Herakles 

'The  right  hand  with  the  apples  may  possibly  be  antique,  but  this 
is  very  doubtful. 

2  The  genuineness  of  the  inscription  has  been  doubted,  but  see 
Amelung,  186. 

3 It  really  proves  only  that  the  type  cannot  be  later  than  the  fourth 
century.  But  there  is,  of  course,  no  doubt  possible  of  its  having  been 
invented  earlier. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  247 

standing,  and  Herakles  performing  his  several  labors,1 — these 
are  some  of  his  statues  which  the  ancient  art  critics  did  not 
weary  of  mentioning  with  commendation. 

The  motive  of  the  Herakles  Farnese  is  more  complex. 
Overbeck 2  discusses  it  as  follows  :  "  The  artist,  it  seems,  en- 
deavored to  place  before  the  people  the  whole  tremendous 
laboriousness  of  the  earthly  career  of  Herakles.  He  repre- 
sented a  body,  knit  of  the  firmest  fibre,  and  developed  to  its 
extreme  by  the  gigantic  toils  which  it  had  been  his  fate  to 
perform.  And  yet  this  body,  in  spite  of  its  extravagant 
strength,  was  seen  overcome,  even  if  not  actually  exhausted 
and  weighed  down,  by  the  hardships  of  life.  It  was  in  need 
of  rest  and  of  support,  both  of  which  were  vouchsafed  to  it 
in  this  world  only  at  rare  intervals  and  never  for  any  length  of 
time.  The  elements  of  the  ph)'sique  of  this  Herakles  type  are 
not  new  with  Lysippos ;  they  are  the  elements  of  hard,  in- 
destructible, but  not  agile  force,  the  same  that  entered  into 
the  conception  of  the  Olympia  metope,  Plate  p2a.  Lysippos, 
however,  has  interpreted  them  in  his  own  peculiar  way,  and 
has  mixed  with  them  a  modified  canon  of  his  own  propor- 
tions.3  The  head  of  the  Farnese  Herakles  is  unduly  small, 
while  the  legs  are  noticeably  long  in  proportion  to  the  trunk. 
This  is  probably  a  device  by  means  of  which  the  artist  hoped 
to  suggest  that  this  ponderous  mass  of  muscles  could  be  put 
into  fiery  motion,  swift  as  it  had  to  be,  for  instance,  in  hunt- 
ing down  the  stag.  From  the  marble  copy  it  is  impossible  to 
judge  as  to  how  successful  this  device  was  in  the  bronze 
original." 


1  For  a  list  of  posssible  copies  of  these  groups  see  Overbeck  II,  p. 
164,  note  13.  2  Free  translation  of  Overbeck  II,  pp.  449ff.  3  For  the 
proportions  of  Lysippos  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  295ff.,  and  the  discussion 
of  Plate  235. 


248  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Theoretically  speaking,  no  finer  touch  was  possible  than  to 
suggest '  to  the  spectator  the  tremendous  activity  of  the  body 
of  Herakles  by  representing  its  superhuman  power  momen- 
tarily spent.  This  gave  play  to  the  imagination,  and  resulted 
in  a  much  stronger  picture  of  the  might  of  Herakles  than 
could  actually  be  carved  ;  for  what  people  imagine  always  out- 
strips what  is  possible  in  reality. 

The  statue  in  Naples  is  inscribed  with  the  name  of  Glykon, 
who  was  the  maker  of  this  particular  copy.  He  has  as  little 
claim  to  the  invention  of  the  type  of  the  statue  as  Antiochos 
has  to  the  design  of  the  Athena  Parthenos,  which  he  repro- 
duced in  the  copy  now  in  Rome,  Plate  ppb. 

PLATE  237o  Hermes  Reposing.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples. 
Discovered  in  1758  in  Herculaneum.  Restorations:  the  entire  rock, 
three  of  the  four  wings  2  on  the  feet,  several  fragments  of  the  head, 
which  was  broken  in  several  pieces.  The  right  arm  was  broken  off, 
but  is  antique.  De  Petra,  La  Villa  Ercolanense,  p.  268  ;  Robinson, 
525  ;  Reinach  I,  367,  I. 

The  wonderful  power  of  Lysippos  of  portraying  the  human 
body  in  bronze  so  that  it  really  seemed  to  be  a  living  body 
and  not  only  its  portrait  in  cold  metal,  is  well  illustrated  in 
his  Hermes.  The  youthful  messenger  of  the  gods,  lithe, 
active,  and  never  tired,  is  sitting.  Far  from  being  exhausted, 
he  gives  signs  of  the  ease  with  which  he  may  resume  his 
journey ;  and  it  needs  not  the  wings  to  tell  one  that  his  journey 
is  swift. 

The  grace  of  outline  and  the  beautiful  balance  of  masses 
are  especially  noticeable.  The  figure  is  the  work  of  an  artist 
of  consummate  skill  and  of  great  love  for  human  bodies. 

1  For  the  principle  of  suggestion  and  its  power  in  art  see  E.  von 
Mach,  pp.  i28ff.  and  244.  2For  similar  wings  see  the  Hermes  Farnese, 
Plate  193. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  249 

Such  a  man  was  Lysippos.  The  proportions  of  Hermes  also 
agree  with  the  canon  of  Lysippos,  so  that  there  is  good  reason r 
to  see  in  him  the  copy  of  a  work  by  that  master. 

PLATE  238a.  Hermes  With  the  Sandal.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek, 
Munich.  Discovered,  probably  about  1790,  in  Hadrian's  Villain  Tivoli. 
The  statue  changed  hands  often  and  was  restored  by  the  sculptor 
Franzoni  by  request  of  the  third  owner,  Duke  Braschi  Oresti.  The 
wrongly  restored  statue  in  the  Louvre,  Plate  238b,  served  as  model. 
In  1809  King  Maximilian  I  (1805-1825)  bought  the  statue  and  in  1819 
he  deposited  it  in  the  Glyptothek.  Restorations  :  the  head,  which  is 
antique  but  belongs  to  a  different  statue;  both  arms  and  the  left  hand; 
the  right  leg  and  the  drapery;  the  right  foot  except  its  center  part ; 
the  left  thigh ;  the  sandal  straps  except  fragments  preserved  with  the 
right  hand.  Furtwangler,  Catalogiie,  287  ;  Klein,  Praxitelische  Studien, 
pp.  4ff. ;  Reinach  I,  487,  7.  Klein's  arguments  are  much  weightier  than 
Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  p.  294,  note,  acknowledges.  The  writer  does 
not  accept  all  the  conclusions  of  Klein,  but  he  cannot  deny  the  force  of 
Klein's  argument,  that  the  original  type  exists  to-day  in  two  separate 
sets  of  replicas. 

PLATE  238b.    Hermes  with  the  Sandal,  "  Jason."    Of  marble. 

Louvre,  Paris.  Discovered  in  Rome,  exact  date  unknown.  Purchased 
by  Louis  XIV  (1643-1715),  deposited  in  Versailles  1769.  Restora- 
tions: the  tip  of  the  nose,  the  lower  lip,  the  chin,  the  back  part  of  the 
head  (the  head  itself,  which  was  broken  off,  is  antique,  but  probably 
does  not  belong  to  the  statue),  the  left  arm  and  shoulder,  half  of  the 
right  forearm  and  the  right  hand,  the  right  leg  almost  to  the  ankle,  a 
part  of  the  drapery,  two  toes  of  the  right  foot  and  a  part  of  the  sandal 
strap.  The  left  leg  was  broken,  but  has  been  put  together  with  the 
help  of  five  modern  pieces.  Small  pieces  are  added  all  over  the  body. 
A  ploughshare  was  added  on  the  other  side  of  the  support  of  the  foot 
to  designate  the  statue  as  Cincinnatus.  Frbhner,  183,  with  full  bibliog- 
raphy on  pp.  212  and  213.  For  later  bibliography  see  Klein,  Praxitel- 

1  No  statue  of  Hermes  by  Lysippos,  it  is  true,  is  recorded  in  ancient 
literature,  but  seated  figures  were  well  liked  by  Lysippos,  as  is  shown 
by  several  such  statues,  which  the  ancient  art  critics  mention. 


250  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

ische  Studien,  p.  4,  note  2.  There  is  a  similar  statue  in  the  Lansdowne 
House,  London,  Reinach  I,  487,  6 ;  and  another,  inverting  the  motive, 
in  the  Vatican,  Reinach  I,  487,  5.  For  a  torso  in  Athens  see  Reinach 
II,  153,  10.  For  other  replicas  see  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  287,  and 
Klein,  Praxitelische  Studien,  pp.  4ff.  A  coin  representing  the  type  is 
reproduced  in  Frohner,  p.  211,  where  also  the  description  of  a  statue  of 
Hermes  by  Christodoros  (Ekphrasis  V,  297-302)  is  given. 

That  the  restorations  of  these  two  figures,  barring  the  heads, 
are  generally  correct  may  be  conceded.  The  question,  how- 
ever, is,  what  was  the  original  position  of  the  arms  ?  The  well- 
preserved  replica  in  the  Lansdowne  collection,  London,  has 
the  right  arm  as  here ;  the  left  arm,  however,  with  the  cape 
wrapped  around  it,  is  bent  inward  and  rests  on  the  right  knee. 
The  head  is  looking  up.  The  design  of  the  figure  is  pleasing, 
while  its  lines  are  more  beautifully  varied  than  those  of  the 
Munich  and  Paris  copies  with  their  present  restorations  and 
the  many  almost  parallel  lines  of  both  arms  and  both  legs. 
Hermes,  so  scholars  say,  is  receiving  the  bidding  of  Zeus,  even 
while  preparing  for  his  journey  to  fulfill  it.  At  an  especially 
important  command  he  interrupts  his  preparations,  eager  not 
to  lose  one  word  of  what  the  king  of  the  god  is  saying. 

All  will  agree  with  Furtwangler  that  the  Munich  figure 
would  be  more  pleasing  to  look  at  if  it  were  restored  like  the 
Lansdowne  statue.  It  is,  however,  not  a  question  of  what  is 
most  pleasing,  but  of  what  is  correct ;  and  Klein  argues  force- 
fully that  the  left  arm  in  the  Munich  figure  cannot  be  restored 
other  than  it  is.  He  reasons  that,  since  the  arm  was  lost  but 
the  shoulder  was  preserved,  the  arm  could  not  have  been  bent 
inward  from  the  shoulder  across  the  breast ;  for  in  that  case 
either  the  arm  and  the  shoulder  would  have  been  lost,  or  part 
of  the  arm  would  have  been  preserved  with  the  shoulder  where 
it  lies  close  to  the  breast,  as  is  the  case  with  the  torso  in 
Athens,  Reinach  II,  153,  lo.1  The  accuracy  of  this  observa- 

1  See  also  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos,  Plate  291. 


FOURTH  CENTURY. 


25' 


tion  is  proved  by  many  statues  where  either  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  alternatives  has  occurred.  The  counter  argu- 
ment, therefore,  that  a  bent  arm  is  more  beautiful,  carries  no 
weight  and  must  be  withdrawn.  This  is  especially  necessary 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  ancient  coin  reproduces  a  Hermes 
in  just  this  attitude  with  both  arms  hanging  down. 

Since  the  Munich  figure,  therefore,  extended  both  arms  to- 
ward the  right  foot  and  the  London  and  Athens  statues  bent 
the  left  arm  across  the  breast,  Klein  argues  that  two  versions 
of  a  common  type  are  extant.  The  Munich  and  Paris  copies 
he  compares  to  a  figure  of  the  Parthenon  West  Frieze  ;  the 
London  and  Athens  figures  to  the  Nike,  Plate  170.  He  then 
assigns  the  one  type  to  Lysippos,  and  the  other  type,  with 
both  arms  hanging  down,  to  an  earlier  master.  His  two  types 
may  be  accepted  without  compelling  one  to  believe  that  two 
different  men  are  to  be  credited  with  them,  for  the  motives 
are  so  similar  that  it  is  easy  enough  to  assign  both  to  one  man, 
a  man  big  enough  to  see  defects  in  his  own  work  and  to  cor- 
rect them.  Such  a  man  was  Lysippos  and  since  the  propor- 
tions of  the  figures  agree  with  his  reputed  canon,1  there  can 
be  no  objection  to  attributing  them  to  him. 

The  name  of  the  statues  is  doubtful.  Cincinnatus,  called 
from  the  plough  to  be  dictator  in  Rome,  was  the  first  sugges- 
tion. Winckelmann  declared  in  favor  of  "  Jason,"  who,  in 
his  hurry,  had  forgotten  to  put  on  both  sandals.  Recently 
the  name  Hermes  has  been  suggested,  which  has  documentary 
authority  in  the  coin  and  in  the  passage  from  Christodoros 
mentioned  above.  Still  others  believe  with  Frohner  that  the 
extant  statues  are  ordinary  athletes,  although  the  type  was  in- 
vented for  Hermes. 


1  For  the  motive  of  the  raised  foot  see  the  discussion  to  Plate  239. 


252  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  239.  Poseidon.  Of  marble.  Lateran  Museum,  Rome. 
Found  in  1824  in  Porto  d'Anzio  in  the  ruins  of  a  building  supposed  to 
have  been  the  public  baths.  Restorations :  the  left  arm,  the  lower 
part  of  the  right  forearm,  both  legs  from  below  the  knees,  the  nose, 
fragments  of  the  hair  and  beard,  the  vessel,  the  dolphin,  both  attri- 
butes, and  the  plinth.  The  restorations  are  based  on  better  preserved 
copies  of  the  same  type,  some  of  which  are  reproduced  in  Reinach  II, 
27;  Helbig,  667;  Reinach  II,  27,  i,  with  restorations,  and  1,428,  5, 
without  restorations.  For  the  motive  of  the  raised  foot  see  Lange, 
Das  Motiv  des  aufgestiitzten  Fusses. 

This  statue  represents  the  type  of  Poseidon,  which  became 
for  subsequent  ages  the  accepted  type  of  this  god.  Lysippos 
designed  it,  as  seems  almost  certain  in  view  of  Lange's  investi- 
gations on  the  subject.  The  characteristic  sign  is  the  motive 
of  the  raised  foot.  This  was,  to  be  sure,  no  invention l  of 
Lysippos,  whose  only  merit  was  that  he  discovered  its  artistic 
usefulness.  The  mission  of  Lysippos  was  not,  as  is  frequently 
asserted,  to  introduce  new  ideas  —  this  was  merely  an  inci- 
dent in  his  great  work  —  but  to  discern,2  "  more  clearly  than 
anyone  before,  the  essential  principles  which  had  guided  his 
predecessors." 

The  youth  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  stands  with  his  foot 
raised,  because  this  position  fits  in  the  general  design  of  the 
composition.  Poseidon  is  similarly  posed,  because  this  atti- 
tude better  than  any  other  seemed  to  express  his  character. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  his  type  survived.  Lysippos  made 
use  of  the  same  attitude  for  Alexander,  Plate  399.  There, 
however,  it  is  merely  a  device  to  reveal  the  body  to  its  best 
advantage ;  it  has,  therefore,  been  as  little  able  to  supplant 
other  types  as  the  Hermes,  Plate  238,  has  become  the  uni- 

1  There  are  several  figures  with  one  foot  raised  on  the  West  Frieze 
of  the  Parthenon.  A  similar  motive  occurs  in  the  Nike  slab,  Plate 
170.  2  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  agoff. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  253 

versal  type  of  Hermes.  The  important  question  in  respect  to 
poses  is,  not  are  they  very  beautiful,  but  are  they  expressive 
of  the  personality  portrayed  ? 

PLATE  240a  and  b.    Two  Statues  of  Nike  from  Epidauros.    Of 

marble.  National  Museum,  Athens.  Found  during  the  excavations  in 
Epidauros  1 88 1  and  1891.  Kavvadias,  Fouilles  d'Epidaure;  Defrasse 
et  Lechat,  Epidaure  (1895),  with  many  plans  and  restorations.  Reinach 
II.  379'  3  and  381.  5  and  6. 

• 

The  excavations  at  Epidauros  have  brought  a  large  number 
of  sculptures  to  light,  some  of -which  may  be  identified,  with  a 
good  deal  of  certainty,  with  Thrasymedes  and  Timotheos. 
They  are  the  sculptures  of  the  large  temple  of  Asklepios. 
Less  certainty  exists  in  respect  to  the  figures  of  Nike  belong- 
ing to  the  smaller  temple  of  Artemis.  That  they  are  of  the 
same  period  cannot  be  doubted,  and  since  the  two  known 
artists  worked  in  Epidauros  between  375-360  B.  C.,  this  is 
also  the  probable  date  of  the  Nike  statues.  If  no  date  were 
known,  their  resemblance  in  conception  to  the  Nike  of 
Paionios,  Plate  no,  and  in  execution  to  the  balustrade  of  the 
Athena-Nike  temple,  Plates  170  and  171,  and  Text  Illustra- 
tion 29,  would  seem  to  argue  in  favor  of  an  earlier  date.  This 
serves  to  prove  how  impossible  it  is  to  argue  as  to  the  time 
that  elapses  between  the  date  of  an  original  and  that  of  the 
later  work  which  is  based  on  it. 

The  Epidauros  statues  of  Nike  served,  as  is  generally 
agreed,  as  akroteria  for  the  corners  of  one  side  of  the  temple. 
A  third  Nike,  slightly  larger,  may  have  decorated  the  point  of 
the  gable.  Another  Nike,  of  which  only  a  large  wing  and  por- 
tions of  the  upper  half  of  the  body  are  extant,  probably  had 
no  connection  '  with  the  temple. 

1 A  basis,  still  in  situ  in  Epidauros,  representing  the  prow  of  a  ship, 


254  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE, 

PLATE  2413  and  b.  TWO  Reliefs  Of  AsklepiOS.  Of  marble.  Na- 
tional Museum,  Athens.  From  Epidauros.  For  date  and  place  of 
discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  240.  Gardner,  p.  398. 

There  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  these  reliefs  reproduce 
the  gold  and  ivory  statue  of  Asklepios  by  Thrasymedes.1 
They  are  not  accurate 2  copies,  as  indeed  they  could  not  be, 
considering  they  were  reliefs,  while  the  original  was  a  statue  in 
the  round.  Copied  accurately  on  the  flat  surface,  Asklepios 
would  have  failed  to  convey  the  same  impression  as  his  gold 
and  ivory  image,  —  probably  he  would  not  even  have  suggested 
it.  Thrasymedes  had  fashioned  him  3  seated,  holding  a  staff 
in  one  hand  and  extending  the  other  over  a  snake  coiling  it- 
self up  at  his  side.  His  dog  was  also  represented.  From  the 
coin  it  appears  that  the  god  had  one  foot  drawn  back.  The 
stiffness  of  the  pose  on  the  coin  is  out  of  keeping  with  the 
traditionally  mild  character  of  Asklepios,  while  both  reliefs  do 
justice  to  his  kindness. 

The  important  thing  to  note  in  the  study  of  these  reliefs  is 
their  design,  in  both  cases  well  adapted  to  an  execution  in  re- 
is  claimed  by  Kavvadias,  Fouilles  d'Epidaure,  pp.  39  and  118,  as  the 
base  of  this  Nike.  The  base  contains  j.n  inscription  datable  in  the 
fourth  century  before  Christ,  so  that  the  motive  of  the  Nike  of  Samo- 
thrace,  Plates  202  and  203,  would  appear  to  be  not  an  original  inven- 
tion for  that  statue.  Overbeck  (II,  p.  129),  however,  advances  weighty 
arguments  against  the  connection  of  the  prow-shaped  base  and  the 
Nike  in  Epidauros. 

1  Thrasymedes  used  to  be  dated  in  the  fifth  century.     An  inscription 
from  Epidauros,  however,  dating  from  between  375  and  360,  speaks  of 
Thrasymedes  as  working  in  gold  and  ivory  on  the  gates  of  the  temple. 

2  Notice  especially  the  right  shoulder,  which  in  the  relief  is  thrown 
back  in  order  to  give  a  view  of  the  chest. 

3  According  to  Pausanias  II,  27,  2,  with  whose  description  a  coin 
agrees.     See  Overbeck  II,  p.  125,  fig.  175. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  255 

lief.  The  artist  has  studied  the  statue  he  desired  to  reproduce, 
and  then  has  expressed,  in  an  entirely  new  design,  his  recol- 
lections of  it  and  his  own  impressions. 

The  reliefs  are  independent,  the  one  of  the  other,  so  that 
they  differ  in  many  details.  The  drapery  of  the  relief,  Plate 
24 1 b,  is  richer  and  is  more  picturesquely  arranged  around  the 
body  than  the  other.  Around  the  legs,  however,  this  second 
relief  is  superior  to  the  first,  owing  to  a  different  distribution 
of  masses.  The  straight  lines  of  the  chair  also  differ  con- 
siderably from  the  curving  back  and  legs  of  the  chair  of  the 
other  relief.  But  with  these  exceptions,  which  a  close  study 
reveals,  there  is  an  unmistakable  resemblance  between  the  two 
reliefs.  They  suggest  the  same  personality  that  was  expressed 
in  the  original  statue.  It  is  this  power  of  suggestion  that 
makes  of  them  works  of  art.  The  best  art  calls  our  attention 
not  to  the  means  employed,  but  to  the  thought  expressed. 

PLATE  242.  Mounted  Amazon.  Of  marble.  National  Museum, 
Athens.  From  Epidauros.  For  date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the 
remarks  to  Plate  240.  Overbeck  II,  p.  126;  Reinach  II,  325,  6. 

Beautiful  in  modelling  and  exquisite  in  design,  this  Amazon 
is  worthy  of  the  sculptor  to  whom  she  has  been  assigned, 
Timotheos,  the  co-worker  of  Skopas  on  the  Maussolleion. 
According  to  inscriptions  found  in  Epidauros,  Timotheos  was 
under  contract  to  make  and  to  supply  the  akroteria  of  one 
side  of  the  temple  for  2240  drachma!1  and  models2  for 
other  sculptures  for  900  drachmai.  This  Amazon  is  believed 
to  have  come  in  under  the  second  contract,  while  the  Nereids, 
Plate  244,  represent  two  of  the  akroteria. 

1  The  approximate  value  of  a  drachme  is  eighteen  cents  or  a  little 
less  than  a  franc. 

2 The  Greek  word  used  here  may  also  be  translated  "reliefs."  The 
small  price  paid,  however,  makes  it  probable  that  models  are  meant. 


256  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

As  splendid  a  horsewoman  as  her  sisters  on  the  Maussolleion 
frieze  (notice  especially  Plate  2290),  this  Amazon  rises  in  her 
seat  to  deal  her  enemy  the  final  blow.  The  horse  is  pulled  in 
hard,  and  rearing,  fills  the  moment  with  an  element  of  pent 
up  passion.  How  much  his  now  lost  head  added  to  the  in- 
tensity of  the  group  is  understood  by  looking  at  the  horse, 
Plate  22pb. 

Unrestricted  by  any  of  the  limitations  of  space  that  confined 
the  heads  of  all  the  Parthenon  horsemen  to  practically  one 
level,  this  Amazon  is  built  up  rising  in  the  air,  her  head  higher 
than  the  head  of  the  horse,  and  her  hand,  still  higher,  swinging 
her  weapon.  She  might  have  filled  the  center  of  a  pediment. 
At  her  feet  we  must  assume  her  foe,  so  that  the  composition 
is  not  unlike  that  of  the  Dexileos  monument,  Plate  365,  and 
yet  how  different  it  is,  owing  to  the  freedom  permitted  to  the 
sculptor  of  figures  in  the  round. 

PLATE  243.  Fragment  of  Mounted  Amazon.  Of  marble.  Mu- 
seum, Boston.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published.  Report  of 
the  trustees  of  the  Museum  (Robinson),  1903,  p.  57,  No.  5.  Length  of 
the  horse,  0.91  m.,  which  is  considerably  more  than  that  of  the  horse, 
Plate  242. 

The  workmanship  of  this  Amazon  is  such  that  it  might  be  a 
work  of  either  the  fourth  century,  B.  C.,  or  of  the  last  part  of 
the  fifth  century.  The  remains  of  an  arm  and  a  hand  on  the 
left  side  of  the  horse's  belly  indicate  that  a  fallen  foe  was  there 
represented,  similar  to  the  one  on  the  Dexileos  monument, 
Plate  365,  which  was  erected  a  few  years  anterior  to  390  B.  C. 
Properly  restored  this  Amazon  would  be  much  like  x  the 
Amazon  of  Epidauros,  Plate  242,  which  is  an  undoubted  fourth 
century  work. 

1  Another  interesting  comparison  is  made  with  the  fragment  of  a 
horseman  from  the  Maussolleion,  Reinach  II,  527,  3. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  257 

Robinson  concludes  from  the  remains  of  the  foe  on  the  left 
side  of  the  horse  which  means  that  the  rider's  action  was 
directed  towards  the  left,  that  neither  the  Boston  nor  the 
Epidauros  Amazon  can  be  copied  the  one  from  the  other. 
This  conclusion  iff  not  necessarily  correct  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  both  ancient  copyists  and  modern  forgers  frequently  in- 
vert the  motive  which  they  reproduce.  An  instance  of  this 
practice  was  mentioned  above  in  the  discussion  of  Plate  238. 

PLATE  244.  TWO  Statues  Of  Mounted  Nereids.  Of  marble.  Na- 
tional Museum,  Athens.  From  Epidauros.  For  date  and  place  of 
discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  244  ;  Reinach  II,  410,  i  and  3. 

These  Nereids  probably  are  two  of  the  akroterion  figures 
made  by  Timotheos  for  the  temple  of  Asklepios  in  Epidauros, 
according  to  the  inscription  quoted  in  connection  with  Plate 
242. 

The  animals  are  hippokampoi,  as  appears  from  their  pro- 
portions, mythical  beasts,  used  instead  of  horses  by  deities  of 
the  sea.1  Their  execution  is  less  fine  than  that  of  the  horse 
of  the  Amazon,  Plate  242,  which,  on  the  strength  of  this  fact, 
has  been  assigned  to  the  pediment  itself  rather  than  to  the 
akroterion  above  it. 

The  treatment  of  the  draperies  of  both  Nereids  resembles 
that  of  the  friezes  from  the  Athena-Nike  temple  in  Athens, 
Plate  169,  and  from  the  temple  of  Apollo  near  Phigaleia, 
Plates  172  and  173.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  figure  to 
the  right,  whose  sharp  folds  over  the  breast  and  near  the  right 
leg  appeal  to  one  as  reminiscences  from  Phigaleia. 

Both  Nereids  were  to  be  seen  at  a  great  height,  which  ac- 
counts for  their  seemingly  uncertain  seat.  Seen  on  the  level, 

1  Poseidon's  chariot  on  the  West  Pediment  of  the  Parthenon  was 
perhaps  drawn  by  hippokampoi ;  but  see  Athen.  Mitth.,  XVI,  p.  73. 


258  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

they  appear  to  be  slipping  from  the  backs  of  their  hippo- 
kampoi. 

The  representation  of  a  motive  not  unlike  that  of  these 
Nereids  was  attempted  by  a  sculptor  in  very  early  Greek  art 
in  the  Europa  on  the  bull  from  Selinous,  Text  Illustration  7. 
The  problems  that  had  confronted  the  early  sculptor,  and  had 
been  solved  by  him  rather  inadequately,  are  still  the  same,  but 
the  Epidauros  artists  have  shown  their  mastery  over  them  to 
such  an  extent  that  they  seem  no  longer  to  exist.  The  delicate 
touch  of  revealing  the  outlines  of  the  body  by  means  of  heavy 
parallel  folds  of  drapery,  which  adds  a  peculiar  charm  to  the 
left  Nereid,  is  the  same  that  distinguishes  one  of  the  Asklepios 
reliefs,  Plate  241  a,  from  the  other,  Plate  24  ib.  Attention 
ought  also  to  be  called  to  the  right  hand  of  the  same  Nereid, 
which,  in  a  more  natural  way  than  is  the  case  in  the  other 
figure,  supplies  a  heavier  mass  of  folds  by  gathering  them  in 
the  lap.  The  undraped  right  breast  carries  a  definite  re- 
minder of  the  Aphrodite  after  Alkamenes,  Plate  108. 

PLATE  245a.    Silenos  with  Infant  Dionysos.   Of  marble.   Giypto- 

thek,  Munich.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in 
the  Palazzo  Gaetani,  later  in  the  Palazzo  Ruspoli;  acquired  for  Munich 
in  Rome  in  1812.  Restorations:  the  head,  which  is  an  exact  replica  of 
the  copy  now  in  the  Vatican,  Plate  24513,  but  formerly  also  in  the 
Palazzo  Ruspoli ;  and  so  many  fragments  everywhere  that  "  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  what  is  old  and  what  is  new."  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  238 ; 
Reinach  I,  375,6. 

PLATE  245b.  SilenOS  With  Infant  Dionysos.  Of  marble.  Vati- 
can, Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown;  formerly  in  the 
Palazzo  Ruspoli.  Restorations :  on  Silenos,  most  of  the  leaves  of  the 
ivy  wreath,  all  the  ringers  and  probably  the  toes  of  both  feet ;  on  Diony- 
sos, the  left  part  of  the  head  from  below  the  left  ear  upwards,  the  nose, 
both  arms,  a  portion  of  the  left  shoulder,  the  left  leg,  the  left  hip,  and 
the  right  foot.  Helbig,  4. 

PLATE  245c.    Silenos  with  the  Infant  Dionysos.    Of  marble. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  259 

Louvre,  Paris.  Discovered  in  Rome  in  the  sixteenth  century  near  the 
gardens  of  Sallust,  which  extended  from  Mount  Quirinal  to  Mount 
Pincius ;  formerly  in  the  Villa  Borghese.  Restorations  :  on  Silenos,  the 
end  of  the  nose,  several  locks  of  the  hair,  both  hands  including  the 
wrists, and  several  toes;  on  Dionysos,  the  nose,  the  chin,  the  arms  and 
the  legs,  and  parts  of  the  back.  The  head  of  Silenos  was  broken  off, 
but  is  antique.  The  base  is  partly  modern  and  the  tree-trunk  almost 
entirely  so.  The  tilt  of  the  figure  to  the  left  is  far  too  pronounced,  as 
appears  from  a  comparison  with  the  other  replicas,  Plates  24 5a  and  24$b. 
Frohner,  250;  F.  W.,  1430;  Robinson,  514;  Reinach  I,  169,  1-3. 

Formerly,  when  Praxiteles  was  little  known  and  people 
judged  only  from  externals,  these  Silenos  groups  were  added  to 
the  cycle  of  Praxiteles.  This  erroneous  view,  which  Wolters 
already  (F.  W.,  1430)  had  exposed,  still  lingers  in  some 
books.  Says  Robinson  (514)  :  "  The  attitude  and  the  senti- 
ment of  the  conception  are  suggestive  of  Praxiteles."  Nothing 
could  be  less  true.  Dreamy  absent-mindedness  characterizes 
Praxiteles.  His  figures  are  never  self-centered,  never  given  to 
the  enjoyment  of  the  moment  at  hand,  but  always  happily  un- 
concerned about  their  surroundings.  The  only  resemblance  to 
Praxiteles  that  any  one  can  see  in  this  group  is  contained  in 
the  little  Dionysos.  But  he  who  looks  twice  notices  how  differ- 
ent the  use  is  that  the  artist  has  made  of  him.  To  Praxiteles, 
the  child  served  as  a  foil  to  set  off  the  day-dreams  of  Hermes ; 
to  the  maker  of  this  group,  the  child  appealed  as  a  pleasing  mo- 
tive for  one  definite  half  of  his  group.  Silenos  without  Diony- 
sos loses  his  very  raison  d'etre ;  Hermes,  Plate  190,  remains 
unchanged,  even  if  the  child  is  taken  away  from  him,  save  that 
his  mood  is  not  so  readily  understood.  This  difference  '  shows 
also  in  the  grouping  of  the  two  figures.  Praxiteles  removed 
Dionysos  to  one  side  and  treated  him  as  an  accessory ;  the 

1  Furtwangler  also  calls  attention  to  the  difference  in  the  feet  be- 
tween Silenos  and  Praxitelean  figures. 


260  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

later '  sculptor  permitted  the  child's  body  to  enter  intimately 
into  the  masses  of  his  main  composition. 

The  pose  of  the  Silenos  is  far  from  being  like  that  of  the 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  It  is  much  more  like  that  of  the 
Farnese  Herakles,  Plate  236,  with  the  one  exception  that 
the  support  here  reaches  only  to  the  elbow,  while  there  it  ex- 
tends to  the  armpit.  The  Herakles  Farnese  has  been  brought 
in  connection  with  Lysippos,  and  the  same  might  be  done  with 
Silenos,  owing  to  his  elongated  proportions,  if  it  were  not  for 
the  realistic  treatment  of  several  details.  In  the  prominent 
abdomen  of  Silenos,  and  in  the  position  of  his  feet,2  one  almost 
in  front  of  the  other,  the  artist  has  introduced  touches  that  are 
true  to  life,  but  far  from  being  artistically  beautiful. 

Several  scholars  have  therefore  been  inclined  to  assign 
Silenos  to  a  later  period  of  Greek  sculpture,  believing  that 
such  realism  was  unknown  to  the  artists  of  the  fourth  century 
before  Christ.  They  are  right  only  in  so  far  as  realism  of  this 
kind  is  not  characteristic  of  that  period.  Exceptions,  how- 
ever, occur,  some  of  them  having  been  noted  above  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Maussolleion  frieze,  Plate  23ob.  To  the  best  of 
our  knowledge  Lysippos  never  permitted  himself  to  deviate 
thus  far  from  the  uniformly  beautiful.  The  kinship  of  the 
Silenos  with  his  work  is,  nevertheless,  so  close  that  the  statue 
deserves  a  place  —  at  least  until  the  contrary  is  proved  —  in 
the  fourth  century. 

Silenos,  the  old  reveler  of  the  Greeks,  was  not  noted  for 
paternal  instincts,  but  when  he  looked  into  the  smiling  eyes  of 
the  child  Dionysos,  even  he  relented.  Aurelius  Nemesianus, 

1  Only  Klein,     Praxiteles,     pp.  395ff.,  speaks  of  an  earlier  sculptor, 
Kephisodotos.     The  impossibility  of  Klein's  suggestion  is  self-evident. 

2  This  fact  is  not  well  seen  in  photographs,  except  on  Plate  2450.    It 
is  rather  disturbing  in  the  originals. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  261 

a  late  Latin  writer,  describes1  the  many  liberties  which  he 
permitted  his  youthful  charge  to  take  with  him,  pulling  his 
beard,  or  pinching  his  nose,  or  patting  his  head.  And  a  group 
in  Rome,  according  to  Pliny  (N.  H.,  36,  29),  represented 
Silenos  soothing  a  crying  child.  In  the  extant  groups,  he 
holds  the  child  lovingly  and  playfully  in  his  arms.  His  charge 
is  smiling  back  at  him  and  extends  one  arm  ready,  no  doubt, 
for  another  of  his  pranks  to  try  the  good  nature  of  his  old 
guardian. 

The  three  statues  in  Munich,  Rome  and  Paris  are  pretty 
accurate  replicas  of  the  same  original.  The  restored  tree- 
trunk  and  base  of  the  Paris  copy  have  given  Silenos  a  too 
pronounced  tilt  to  the  left.  With  this  exception,  the  pictures 
of  the  three  statues  taken  from  different  points  of  view  may 
serve  as  illustrations  of  three  views  of  any  one  of  them. 

PLATE  246.  TorSO  Belvedere.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Date 
and  place  of  discovery  unknown ;  2  formerly  in  the  Colonna  family, 
added  to  the  Belvedere  gardens  by  Pope  Clement  VII  (1523-1534). 
Helbig,  126;  F.  W.,  1431;  Robinson,  663;  Sauer,  Der  Torso  Belve- 
dere (1894) ;  Reinach  I,  477,  i,  3. 

Apollonios,  son  of  Nestor,  of  Athens,  whose  name  appears 
in  the  inscription  on  the  rock  of  this  torso,  is  generally  consid- 
ered to  be  the  maker  of  this  particular  statue,  and  not  the 
inventor  of  this  conception.  Sauer,  however,  and  with  him 
Overbeck  (II,  p.  447),  differ  from  this  view. 

The  intensity  of  the  twist  of  the  body,  and  the  attention 
paid  to  the  finish,  "  making  of  the  torso  flesh,"  as  Dannecker, 

1  Eclogues,  X,  27-34,  quoted  in  Frohner,  p.  265. 

2  The  usual  account  that  this  statue  was  found  in  the  Campo  di 
Fiori,  that  is,  in  the  precincts  of  the  Theatre  of  Pompey,  during  the 
papacy  of  Julius  II,  is  erroneous.     Helbig,  126. 


262  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  sculptor,  used  to  say,  while  the  Laokoon,  Plate  270,  is 
marble,  render  a  date  for  the  original  earlier  than  the  age  of 
Lysippos  impossible.  This  has  been  universally  recognized. 
Robinson  alone  says  that,  "  its  date  may  have  been  as  early  as 
the  end  of  the  fifth  century."  Probably  a  hasty  comparison 
of  the  torso  with  the  figures  from  the  West  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon  has  misled  him.  The  letters  of  the  Apollonios  in- 
scription belong  to  about  the  first  century  before  Christ,  so 
that  this  would  "be  the  latest  possible  date  of  the  torso. 

The  suggestions  of  restorations  of  the  torso  have  been 
numerous.  Visconti  believed  another  figure,  a  woman,  stood 
at  his  left;  Heyne  thought  the  figure  was  a  copy  of  the 
Herakles  Epitrapezios  :  by  Lysippos ;  and  Petersen  suggested 
a  Herakles  playing  the  lyre.  The  impossibility  of  all  three 
restorations  has  been  demonstrated.2  In  respect  to  the  last  it 
is  interesting  to  compare  the  torso  with  the  seated  "  Anakreon," 
in  Copenhagen,  Plate  389.  A  more  vigorous  lyre-player  is 
not  readily  imagined.  But  the  action  of  the  Belvedere  torso 
is  even  more  intense,  so  that  it  seems  impracticable  to  restore 
it  as  Herakles  with  the  lyre.  As  such,  Herakles  also  ought  to 
place  his  left  leg  back,  instead  of  extending  it,  as  is  the  case 
in  the  torso. 

The  most  plausible  restoration 3  is  offered  by  Sauer  in  his 
book  on  the  Torso  Belvedere.  He  says  that  the  figure,  in  the 
first  place,  is  not  Herakles,  but  Polyphemos ;  for  the  skin  on 
the  rock  is  not  that  of  a  lion,  but  of  a  panther.  The  Poly- 
phemos of  which  Sauer  speaks  is  not  the  Polyphemos  of 
Homer,  but  he  of  the  later  poets,  who  was  more  civilized 
and  was  in  love  with  the  Nereid  Galateia.  Seated  on  a  rock, 

'For  seated  statues  of  Herakles  see  Reinach  I,  475,  5,  and  II,  229, 
5  ;  also  Rev.  Arch.,  35,  1899,  p.  58,  fig.  i.  2  See  Overbeck  II,  pp.  43 iff. 
3  For  a  picture  see  Overbeck  II,  p.  434. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  263 

with  his  club  leaning  against  his  left  thigh,1  the  giant  is  waiting 
for  his  love.  Thinking  that  she  is  approaching  from  his  left, 
he  turns  in  that  direction,  raising  his  left  hand  to  shade  his 
weak  eye  and  at  the  same  time  reaching  over  with  his  right 
hand  to  hold  his  club. 

It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  affirm  that  Sauer's  restoration 
is  correct ;  all  that  it  is  possible  to  say  is  that  it  alone  accounts 
for  the  action  of  the  torso  as  we  see  it,  and  that  no  arguments 
have  been  advanced  to  disprove  its  accuracy. 

Technically,  the  Belvedere  torso  is  peculiar  in  that  it  shows 
no  veins  in  spite  of  its  apparent  realism.  Winckelmann,  who 
wrote  before  the  Parthenon  sculptures  and  many  other  Greek 
works  had  become  known,  drew  the  conclusion  from  this  fact 
that  the  Greek  gods,  to  show  their  immortal  state,  had  their 
bodies  thus  represented.  From  this  remark  the  erroneous  no- 
tion has  spread  that  the  Greeks  never  represented  veins  in 
their  sculpture  ;  a  doctrine  which  is  readily  disproved  by  the 
observation  of  almost  any  original  Greek  statue  or  relief. 
Instances  where  veins  are  prominent  are  the  Parthenon  sculpt- 
ures, the  Boxer  after  Pythagoras,  Plates  66  and  67,  and  the 
Stele  of  Alxenor,  Plate  34pa.  The  absence  of  veins  on  the 
Belvedere  torso  may  be  explained  in  several  ways.  One  is 
that  the  torso  was  made  at  a  time  when  accurate  observation 
of  nature  had  given  way  to  academic  representation  of  bodily 
forms ;  the  other,  that  the  veins  were  added,  according  to  the 
custom 2  of  the  ancients,  when  the  entire  statue  was  painted. 

PLATE  247.  Demeter  Of  KnidOS.  Of  marble.  British  Museum, 
London.  First  observed  by  English  travelers  in  1812,  found  during 
the  winter  of  1857-1858  in  the  Temenos  of  Demeter  in  Knidos  by  Sir 
C.  Newton.  British  Museum  Catalogue  with  full  bibliography;  F.  W., 
1275;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  282ff. ;  Reinach  II,  245,  2. 

1  There  are  places  of  attachment  on  the  left  side  of  the  thigh. 
3  For  the  painting  of  statues  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  6?ft. 


264  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

"There  are  in  Knidos,"  says  Pliny,1  "other  statues  by  first- 
rate  sculptors  .  .  .  and  there  is  no  greater  testimony  to  the 
Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles  (see  Plates  198  and  199)  than  the 
fact  that  among  all  these  it  is  the  only  one  thought  worthy  of 
mention." 

This  Demeter  doubtless  is  one  of  the  statues  which  Pliny 
had  in  mind.  One  of  the  most  beautiful  statues  of  antiquity, 
it  is  yet  not  mentioned  in  ancient  literature. 

Its  state  of  preservation  unfortunately  is  poor,  owing  to  the 
poor  material  of  which  the  body  is  wrought.  Only  the  head 
and  neck,  which  were  made  to  be  inserted,  are  carved  of  a  fine 
piece  of  marble.  The  gracious  dignity  of  Demeter,  who,  as 
the  mother  longing  for  her  daughter,  always  appealed  to  the 
fine  sentiment  of  the  Greeks,  is  remarkably  well  portrayed. 
Her  statue  is  inspired  by  the  loving  sunshine  of  the  art  of 
Praxiteles.  If  one  would  know  the  full  extent  of  her  fourth- 
century  charm,  one  must  compare  the  Knidian  Demeter  with 
her  of  the  Eleusinian  relief,  Plate  1 78.  Dignified  and  kind 
she  is  even  there,  but  here  she  is  an  individual  imbued  with 
feelings  that  human  beings  can  understand. 

PLATE  248.  "Flora  FameSC."  Colossal  statue  of  marble. 
Museum,  Naples.  Discovered  in  the  Baths  of  Caracalla  in  Rome  dur- 
ing the  papacy  of  Paul  III  (1534-1549),  and  taken  to  Naples  toward 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Restorations  :  the  head,  the  lower 
arms  and  the  feet.  F.  W.,  1284  ;  Reinach  I,  212,  5. 

The  fourth  century  Greek  origin  of  this  statue  seems  so  un- 
mistakable, and  its  interpretation  as  Flora  so  natural  that  one 
is  prone  to  search  for  the  Greek  equivalent  of  this  decidedly 
Roman  deity.  Unfortunately,  it  has  not  been  found.  Several 
suggestions2  have  been  made,  none,  however,  to  universal 

1 N.  H.,  36,  22,  translated,  Stuart- Jones,  p.   152.      2  See  F.  W.,  1284. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  265 

satisfaction.  Flora  we  may,  therefore,  continue  to  call  this 
goddess,  although  we  must  remember  that  when  the  statue 
was  designed  this  was  not  her  name. 

Some  things  are  so  superior  that  to  enlarge  on  their  beauty 
seems  impertinent.  The  Farnese  Flora  belongs  to  this  class. 
Her  modern  head  and  right  hand  unfortunately  are  not  in 
keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  statue,  but  no  one  who  has  ever 
seen  her  can  forget  the  wonderful  impression  that  her  benign 
advance  made  on  him.  Involuntarily  one  is  reminded  of 
Schiller's  description  of  the  mythical  girl,  perhaps  Spring  her- 
self, who  visited  a  tribe  of  poor  herdsmen  whenever  the  larks 
began  to  sing : 

In  einem  Thai  bei  arm  en  Hirten, 

Erschien  mit  jedem  neuen  Jahr, 
Sobald  die  ersten  Lerchen  schwirrten, 
Ein  Mddchen  sch'dn  und  wunderbar. 

PLATE  249a.  Demeter,  Seated.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek  Ny  Carls- 
berg,  Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown  ;  formerly 
in  the  Palazzo  Rondanini  in  Rome.  Restorations :  the  head  and  right 
arm.  Copenhagen,  Catalogue,  184;  Miiller-Wieseler,  2,  Plate  VIII, 
87  ;  Reinach  II,  245,  4. 

This  statue,  the  exact  date  of  which  is  still  open  to  doubt,  is 
well  studied  by  the  side  of  the  Demeter  of  Knidos,  whose 
benignity  and  charm  she  unfortunately  lacks.  The  drapery  of 
the  Knidian  is  of  a  different  kind,  and  by  its  very  arrangement 
reveals  the  individual.  That  of  the  Copenhagen  Demeter  is 
stereotyped.  The  undergarment  reminds  one  of  the  standing 
figure,  Plate  77,  while  the  shawl  is  arranged  in  a  way  that  since 
Pheidias  made  use  of  it  for  his  colossal  Zeus  in  Olympia  has 
often  been  copied. 

PLATE  249b.  Kybele,  Seated.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek  Ny  Carls- 
berg,  Copenhagen.  Discovered,  date  unknown,  in  its  place,  it  is  sup- 


2  66  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

posed,  as  temple  image  in  Formiae.  Restorations :  the  nose,  some  of 
the  hair  by  the  right  temple,  and  the  fingers.  Copenhagen,  Catalogue, 
274;  Showerman,  Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  Vol.  I,  No.  3. 

The  cult  of  Kybele,  the  great  mother  of  the  gods,  was  in- 
troduced in  204  B.  C.  in  Rome  from  Greece  and  Asia  Minor, 
where  it  had  flourished  long  before.  This  particular  statue  has 
not  the  appearance  of  an  original  Greek  work  and  was  there- 
fore undoubtedly  made  in  Rome  subsequent  to  204  B.  C.  It 
copies  probably  an  earlier  Greek  work,  but  whether  this  be- 
longs to  the  fourth  century  or  to  the  next  century  may  be 
difficult  to  decide.  The  statue  is  placed  here  in  order  that 
a  comparison  between  it  and  the  statues  of  Demeter,  Plates 
247  and  2493,  may  enable  one  to  study  the  several  types  of 
seated  figures,1  which  in  the  best  Greek  times  are  not  many. 

PLATE  250.  Nymph.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg, 
Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published.  Copen- 
hagen, Catalogue,  315. 

The  drapery  of  this  statue  is  carved  solely  as  a  foil  to  the 
nude,  just  as  it  was  with  the  Amazon  from  the  Maussolleion 
frieze,  Plate  229,  and  the  Bacchante,  Plate  219.  The  right 
leg  of  the  figure  is  in  a  bad  state  of  preservation ;  the  upper 
part  of  the  body,  however,  and  the  left  leg  and  knee  still  show 
the  loving  care  which  the  artist  bestowed  upon  the  nude.  The 
lines  of  the  drapery  taken  by  themselves  are  far  from  beauti- 
ful. They  appeal,  however,  by  their  fortuitous  arrangement, 
which  seems  to  place  an  individual  before  one.  They  are  in 
this  respect  far  removed  from  the  dignified  beauty  that  charac- 
terizes the  "  Nike  "  of  the  East  Pediment  of  the  Parthenon, 

1  Compare  also  the  seated  figures  from  the  East  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  267 

Plate  139,  and  partake  of  the  spirit  that  permeates  the  Maus- 
solleion  frieze.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  figure  has  been 
placed  here,  although  it  cannot  be  denied  that  she  also  could 
have  been  carved  in  the  next  period.  The  name  "  nymph  "  is 
only  a  suggestion.  She  is  thought  of,  together  with  her  sisters, 
as  accompanying  Artemis  through  the  woods.  Plates  296  and 
305  reproduce  the  type  of  Artemis  that  might  have  formed 
the  center  of  this  group. 

PLATE  251.  Psyche  Of  Capua,  SO-called.  Of  marble.  Museum, 
Naples.  Discovered  in  the  ruins  of  the  amphitheater  in  Capua,  to- 
gether with  the  Aphrodite,  Plate  293,  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  Restorations  :  the  lower  part  of  the  nose.  The  entire  figure 
has  been  polished  in  modern  times  to  obtain  a  smooth  surface.  F.  W., 
1471 ;  Robinson,  547  ;  Reinach  I,  357,  4. 

Two  small  holes  on  the  right  shoulder  have  led  people  to 
believe  that  wings  ought  to  be  added  to  this  figure,  and  to 
call  her  Psyche.  The  sad  droop  of  the  head  and  the  melan- 
choly expression  of  the  face  seemed  to  agree  with  this  inter- 
pretation. More  recently,  however,  it  has  been  remarked  that 
the  figure  seems  to  be  too  mature  for  Psyche,  and  that  the 
holes  on  the  shoulder  could  not  have  been  used  for  the  attach- 
ment of  wings,  for  these  would  have  left  traces  on  the  shoulder^ 
which  is  not  the  case.  All  other  names  are  only  suggestions, 
Aphrodite  being  perhaps  the  most  feasible  of  all. 

The  peculiar  fracture  of  the  head  is  explained  by  the  prac- 
tice of  the  ancients  of  piecing  their  sculptures.  The  additions 
on  the  top  and  the  back  of  the  head,  being  insecurely 
fastened,  have  been  lost.1  Another  explanation  is  that  the 
figure  fitted  into  the  architectural  setting  of  the  amphitheater, 
where  it  was  found,  and  that  the  space  required  the  mutila- 

'  For  a  similar  instance  see  the  Hermes  in  Boston,  Plate  124. 


268  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

tion  of  the  head,  which  now  is  apparent  but  in  its  place  would 
have  passed  unnoticed. 

Judged  as  a  piece  of  architectural  decoration,  this  Psyche  is 
perfect.  Studied  close  at  hand  it  is  very  disappointing.  The 
body  is  indicated  by  graceful  outlines,  but  there  is  no  fine 
modelling  anywhere.  Psyche  is  marble  and  will  never  appear 
to  be  flesh  and  blood  even  to  the  most  enthusiastic  student. 
This,  however,  has  not  prevented  people  from  ranking  her 
with  the  masterpieces  of  Greek  sculpture.  People  in  this 
respect  are  like  the  makers  of  the  first  crude  statues  of 
"  Apollo,"  unable  to  go  beyond  the  perception  of  outlines. 
It  took  generations  of  thoughtful  study  before  the  Greek 
artists  advanced  to  the  appreciation  of  finer  details.  And  so 
it  takes  much  patient  observation  before  the  modern  student 
of  ancient  art  learns  the  reason  why  this  Psyche,  as  he  sees 
her  to-day,  cannot  be  the  work  of  a  master  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury before  Christ. 

PLATE  252.  Fragment  of  a  Draped  Woman.  Of  bronze.  Mu- 
seum, Berlin.  Found  in  Kyzikos  in  1882.  Berlin,  Catalogue,  3. 

This  is  one  of  the  few  extant  remains  of  original  Greek 
bronzes1  of  draped  figures.  It  repeats  a  motive  which,  with 
variations,  occurs  on  the  figures  from  Herculaneum,  now  in 
Dresden,  Plate  208 ;  and  on  the  statue  of  Sophokles,  now  in 
the  Lateran  Museum,  Plate  412.  All  these  statues  are  proba- 
bly copies  of  bronzes.  By  comparing  them  with  the  Berlin 
fragment,  one  readily  sees  how  superior  to  marble  bronze  was 
for  the  reproduction  of  such  motives. 


1  A  similar  fragment  was  shown  in  a  private  view  of  the  Museum  in 
Boston  two  years  ago.  No  information  of  its  provenience  was  given, 
and  the  fragment  has  not  been  placed  on  exhibition. 


FOURTH  CENTURY.  269 

PLATE  253.    The  Monument  of  Lysikrates  in  Athens.    Stuart 

and  Revett,  Antiquities  of  Athens,  Vol.  I,  Chapter  IV,  De  Cou,  A.J.  A., 
First  Series,  VIII,  1893,  pp.  42ff.;  for  the  reliefs  sec  F.  W.,  1328; 
Robinson,  597ff. 

In  ancient  Athens  there  was  a  street  called  the  "  Street  of 
the  Tripods,"  because  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Athenians 
to  erect  here  on  columns  or  shrines  tripods  commemorating 
the  victories  in  musical  contests.  The  names  inscribed  on  this 
monument  are  Lysikratas  the  victor,1  and  Euaintes,  the  archon. 
Euaintes  was  archon  in  335-334  B.  C.,  which,  therefore,  is  the 
date  of  this  monument.  The  monument  is  about  thirty-four 
feet  high. 

1  Lysikrates  had  paid  the  expenses  of  the  chorus  that  had  won  the 
prize. 


270  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART  Six. 


The  Hellenistic  Period. 
THE  AUTUMN  DAYS  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 


Alexander  the  Great  had  carried  as  far  as  India,  together  with 
his  standards,  also  the  knowledge  of  Greek  civilization.  He 
died  in  323  B.  C.,  succeeded  in  the  several  Asiatic  and  African 
principalities  by  his  generals.  Everywhere  Greek  ideas  spread, 
and  the  wealth  of  monarchies  was  placed  at  their  disposal. 
These  ideas,  however,  were  often  as  unlike  the  true  Greek 
ideas  of  earlier  centuries  as  the  conditions  were  unlike  those 
under  which  Greek  art  had  formerly  flourished.  There  was, 
moreover,  an  admixture  of  barbaric  notions  of  sensuous  pleas- 
ure that  tended  to  alter  completely  the  essence  of  art.  Side 
by  side  with  these  manifestations,  the  old  traditions  were  kept 
alive  by  some  men,  and  every  now  and  then  works  were 
created  that  would  have  called  for  the  admiration  even  of 
Pheidias  and  Praxiteles.  It  was  as  it  is  to-day.  Surrounded 
by  statues  whose  inanity  reflects  the  commercial  instincts  of 
the  age,  such  works  as  French's  "  John  Harvard,"  or  Saint 
Gaudens'  "  Sherman,"  or  Dallin's  "  Medicine  Man  "  loom  up 
like  reminders  of  an  age  of  thoughtful  nobility. 

Skill  was  the  keynote  then  as  it  is  now.  Works  were  not 
undertaken  unless  they  offered  singular  opportunities  for  its 
display.  But  it  is  very  wrong  to  believe  that  every  good  statue 


43-       FUNERAL    VASE. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  271 

showing  more  beauty  than  skill  can  give,  beauty  that  is  de- 
pendent on  the  nobility  of  conception,  must  for  this  reason  be 
assigned  to  an  earlier  age  than  the  Hellenistic  Period. 

There  is  in  the  best  works  of  this  period  an  element  of  ripe- 
ness and  of  self-sufficiency,  a  sense  of  confidence  in  contrast 
to  the  faith  of  earlier  works,  that  has  led  the  writer  to  coin  the 
term,  "  Autumn  Days  of  Greek  Sculpture."  For  a  more  de- 
tailed discussion  of  this  element  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  299^". 

Of  no  other  period  of  Greek  art  is  there  such  lack  of 
agreement  as  to  its  value  as  of  this  one.  This  is  largely  due 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  longest  of  all,  and  that  only  very 
few  artists  are  known  to  whom  it  might  be  possible  to  assign 
any  of  the  extant  monuments.  The  customary  procedure  has 
been  to  group  in  the  Hellenistic  age  everything  that  is  too 
poor  to  be  of  fourth  century  workmanship  and  too  good  to  be 
Roman ;  Roman  sculpture,  as  people  used  to  think,  being  the 
worst  of  all  ancient  sculpture.  The  injustice  of  such  procedure 
ought  to  be  self-evident.  The  student  ought  to  realize,  in  the 
first  place,  that  some  of  the  statues  created  in  this  period  were 
in  nobility  of  conception  and  in  perfection  of  execution,  second 
to  none ;  secondly,  that  many  works  were  imbued  with  a  very 
distinct  character1  of  their  own  by  which  they  may  be  dis- 
tinguished ;  and  finally,  that  many  artists,  studying  as  they  did 
assiduously  the  art  of  their  predecessors,  could  not  help  work- 
ing more  or  less  according  to  the  earlier  styles. 

This  latter  fact  renders  it  especially  difficult  to  bring  order 
out  of  the  chaos  of  statues  commonly  assigned  to  the  Hellen- 
istic Period.  The  plan  followed  here  has  been  to  group  in 
this  period,  first  those  statues  and  reliefs  which  can  be  dated 
accurately  as  belonging  to  it ;  and  secondly,  those  works  for 
which  no  definite  dates  can  be  ascertained  but  which  have  so 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  aggff. 


272  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

habitually  been  assigned  to  this  period  that  they  are  most 
readily  looked  for  in  this  connection.  Many  statues,  in  con- 
sequence, are  treated  here  in  spite  of  the  personal  opinion  of 
the  writer  that  they  owe  their  origin  to  the  fourth  century  be- 
fore Christ  or  to  the  Roman  Period. 

PLATE  254.  Boy  with  Goose,  probably  after  Boethos.  Of  mar- 
ble. Glyptothek,  Munich.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown; 
formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Braschi  in  Rome ;  purchased  -for  Munich  in 
1812.  Restorations:  the  tuft  of  hair  over  the  forehead,  the  tip  of  the 
nose,  the  lower  lip,  part  of  the  upper  lip,  and  a  few  locks;  also  the  head 
and  the  tips  of  the  wings  of  the  goose.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  268  ; 
F.  W.,  1586  ;  Reinach  I,  535,  5.  For  the  replica  in  the  Capitoline  see 
Helbig,  518;  Reinach  I,  534,  i  :  for  the  replica  in  the  Louvre,  Robin- 
son, 568;  Reinach  I,  148,  3:  for  the  replica  in  the  Vatican,  Baumeister, 
p.  350,  fig.  372; *  Reinach  I,  535,  9.  There  are  many  statues  of  boys 
with  birds  extant,  although  not  of  the  same  arrangement.  One  little- 
known  group  is  in  Stockholm,  Rev.  Arch.,  29,  1896,  Plate  X.2  For  a 
discussion  of  the  several  types  of  boys  with  geese  see  Ernest  Gardner, 
/.  H.  S.,  VI,  pp.  iff. 

This  statue  is  universally,  s  assigned  to  Boethos,-*  who  made, 
according  to  Pliny  (N.  H.,  34,  84),  a  bronze  group  of  a  boy 
strangling  a  goose.  Geese  were  familiar  animals  with  the 
Greeks.  Children  played  5  with  them  as  they  now  play  with 
cats. 

1  Robinson  erroneously  says  that  figure  372  in  Baumeister  is  the 
replica  in  the  Louvre.  2  This  figure  is  especially  interesting,  because 
the  treatment  of  the  body  and  of  the  arms  is  not  unlike  that  of  the 
Spinario,  Plate  72.  3The  only  dissenting  voice  is  Robinson  (568), 
whose  conclusions  seem  to  be  due  to  a  misinterpretation  of  the  article 
by  Ernest  Gardner.  Gardner  himself  ( Handbook,  pp.  442f.)  correctly 
attributes  the  statue  to  Boethos.  *  For  a  discussion  of  the  date  of 
Boethos  see  Helbig,  518.  s  Even  the  geese  of  Penelope,  Homer  Od., 
XIX,  536,  seem  to  be  kept  more  for  the  pleasure  of  Penelope  than 
for  any  other  purpose.  For  the  place  of  geese  in  the  Greek  house- 
hold see  Stephani,  Compte  Rendu,  1863,  p.  17,  51. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  273 

This  little  fellow  has  played  with  his  goose  and  is  determined 
to  retain  him,  even  against  his  will.  Like  a  little  Herakles,  as 
Wolters  says,  he  is  struggling  with  his  mighty  opponent.  So 
eager  is  he  that,  in  the  joyful  exercise  of  his  childish  strength, 
he  does  not  notice  the  discomfort  he  is  giving  to  his  comrade, 
whom  he  seems  to  be  strangling.  He  laughs,  and  so  does  the 
spectator,  moved  by  the  amusing  appearance  of  the  goose  and 
the  merriment  of  the  whole  composition.  The  group  is  de- 
signed in  the  round,  yet  so  that  one  point  of  view  is  the  best, 
with  all  the  lines  arranged  as  they  would  be  in  a  composition 
in  relief. 

PLATE  255.    Fragment  of  Drapery  by  Damophon.    Of  marble. 

National  Museum,  Athens.  Discovered  in  Lykosoura  in  Arkadia  in 
1889.  Together  with  this  fragment,  the  heads,  Plates  477,489,492, 
were  found.  Kavvadias,  Le  Fouilles  de  Lykosoura  ;  Robinson,  738  D; 
Overbeck  II,  pp.  486ff.  For  the  date  of  the  temple  see  Dorpfeld, 
At/ten.  Mitth.,  XV,  1890, p.  230,  and  XVIII,  1893,  PP-  sigff.  The  most 
recent  and  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  art  of  Damaphon  is  by  Daniel 
in/.  H.  S.,  XXIV,  1904,  pp.  4iff. 

Dorpfeld  has  dated  the  ruins  of  the  temple  in  which  the 
statues  of  Damophon  were  erected  in  the  second  century  be- 
fore Christ.  No  remains  of  an  earlier  temple  have  been  found, 
so  that  this  would  appear  to  be  the  date  also  of  the  statues. 
Pausanias  r  is  the  only  ancient  author  who  mentions  Damo- 
phon, and  from  his  writings  it  is  impossible  to  draw  any  de- 
finite conclusions  as  to  the  century  in  which  Damophon  lived. 
From  the  style  of  the  heads,  Plates  477,  489,  and  492,  many 
scholars  have  come  to  look  upon  Damophon  as  closely  allied 
to  the  great  masters  of  the  fourth  century.2  They  are,  there- 

1  Pausanias  IV,  31  ;  VII,  23;  VIII,  31  and  37. 

2  A  head  in  the  Capitoline  Museum,  Helbig,  453,  is  variously  as- 
signed to  Damophon  or  to  pupils  of  Skopas. 


274  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

fore,  inclined  to  discredit  Dorpfeld's  investigation.  It  is,  how- 
ever, possible  to  harmonize  Dorpfeld's  date  with  the  supposed 
style  of  the  Lykosoura  sculptures ;  for  it  is  known  that  some 
artists  of  the  Hellenistic  age  followed  more  closely  than  others 
in  the  footsteps  of  their  predecessors.  This  was  especially 
natural  in  the  case  of  temple  statues. 

The  richness  of  decoration  of  the  remaining  fragment  of 
drapery '  has  proved  a  revelation.  The  embroidery,2  which  it 
is  intended  to  represent,  is  not  confined  to  the  border,  but 
spreads  over  the  entire  garment.  No  such  splendor  is  known 
on  any  other  temple  image,  not  even  on  the  Parthenos,  Plates 
96ff.  But  she  is  extant  only  in  copies,  while  the  Lykosoura 
fragment  is  a  bit  of  the  original.  It  may  serve,  therefore,  not 
only  as  an  indication  of  what  Damophon  was  able  to  do,  but 
also  as  a  suggestion  of  what  was  probably  done  in  the  case  of 
all  important  temple  images. 

PLATE  256.    Statue  of  the  Tyche  of  Antiocheia  on  the  Orontes. 

Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Discovered,  date  unknown,  outside  the 
Porta  S.  Giovanni  in  Rome;  formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  sculptor 
Cavaceppi,  who  restored  the  missing  parts  from  Syrian  coins.  Restora- 
tions :  the  mural  diadem,  the  parts  of  the  drapery  falling  over  the 
shoulders  and  back,  the  nose,  the  upper  lip,  and  the  right  forearm; 
also  the  arms  of  the  river  god  below.  Helbig,  376;  F.  W.,  1396; 
Reinach  I,  450,  3.  For  a  possible  copy  of  the  river  God  see  Springer- 
MichaelisI,  fig.  463. 

Visconti  and  Miiller  were  the  first  to  identify  this  statue 
with  the  bronze  statue  of  the  Tyche  of  Antiocheia  by  Euty- 


1  Compare  also  the  drapery  of  Hermes,  Plate  190. 

2  For  the  Nike  with  the  incense  on  the  drapery,  compare  the  gem 
in  Furtwangler's  Antike  Gemmen,  III,  p.  133,  dating  from  the  first  half 
of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  275 

chides,1  a  pupil  of  Lysippos.  This  identification  is  now  almost 
universally 2  accepted. 

The  beautiful  location  of  the  city  is  suggested  in  the  statue. 
Nestling  on  the  hills  near  the  banks  of  the  Orontes,  Antiocheia 
enjoyed  the  reputation  of  being  one  of  the  most  beautiful  cities 
of  antiquity.  She  was  well  fortified  —  the  goddess  wears  a 
mural  crown ;  she  was  rich  in  fertile  lands  —  the  goddess 
holds  ears  of  corn  in  her  right  hand ;  and  she  was  favored 
with  a  navigable  river  —  the  river  god  appears  3  from  the  rock 
at  her  feet. 

The  mildness  of  the  goddess,  which  is  apparent  in  the  re- 
duced copy,  was  in  the  colossal  original  probably  made  sub- 
servient to  the  impression  of  grandeur  and  dignity.  The 
execution  of  the  Vatican  copy  is  not  above  the  average.  The 
design,  however,  is  so  beautiful  that  one  may  well  reckon  this 
figure  among  the  best  extant  works  of  this  period. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  ancients  did  not  speak  of  this 
statue  as  Antiocheia,  contrary  to  modern  customs  ;  the  French, 
for  instance,  speaking  of  their  famous  statue  in  Paris  as 
"  Strassbourg."  This  observation  has  led  to  an  interesting 
investigation  by  Percy  Gardner «  on  Countries  and  Cities  in 
Ancient  Art.  He  finds  that  they  were  represented  in  three 
ways  :  first,  by  the  persons  of  their  guardian  deities ;  secondly, 
by  the  persons  of  their  founders  or  heroes  eponymoi;*  and 

1  For  a  recently  published  inscription  of  Eutychides,  see  B.  C.  ff., 
1894,  pp.  336f. 

2  F.  W.,  1396,  refers  to  doubts  expressed  by  Michaelis.    They  have 
been  withdrawn,  see  Springer- Michaelis  I,  pp.  26 iff.  and  figure  464. 

3  He  probably  was  represented  as  swimming.     Cavaceppis'  restora- 
tion of  his  arms  is  open  to  doubts.     See,  however,  the  swimming  river 
gods  on  the  base  of  the  statue  of  the  Tiber,  Reinach  I,  68,  I. 

V-  H-  -S;  IX,  pp.  47ff. 

5  "  Eponymos  "  practically  means  "namesake." 


276  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

finally,  allegorically,  similarly  to  the  personification  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Hellas  and  Asia  in  the  Persai  of  Aischylos  (i8if.),  as 
women  dressed  in  the  respective  garbs  of  their  countries.  The 
statue  by  Eutychides  belonged  to  the  first  of  these  classes. 

The  School  of  Sculpture  of  Pergamon.1 

Brunn  was  the  first  to  assign  the  Dying  Gaul  and  the  Gaul 
and  His  Wife,  Plates  25  7-259, 2  to  the  school  of  Pergamon. 
He  published  his  discovery  in  1857.  Up  to  that  date  the  very 
existence  of  this  school  had  been  forgotten.  Then  followed 
in  quick  succession  the  identification  of  the  copies  of  statues 
which  Attalos  I  of  Pergamon  (241-197  B.  C.)  had  sent  as  a 
votive  offering  to  Athens,  Plates  262-264;  and  our  knowledge 
of  that  school  seemed  to  be  based  on  a  firm  foundation.  No 
one,  however,  could  dream  of  the  startling  discoveries  yet  to 
be  made. 

Karl  Humann  had  obtained,  in  1873,  possession  of  a  few 
fragments  of  an  ancient  high  relief  from  Pergamon.  He  at 
once  recognized  their  value  and  secured  permission  to  search 
for  more.  In  1878  the  German  excavations  began,  which 
lasted  until  1886.  The  finds,  Plates  267-268,  were  large  and 
valuable  beyond  the  most  sanguine  expectations.  In  1898  the 
country  was  surveyed  preparatory  to  the  making  of  careful 
maps,  and  this  led  to  renewed  excavations,3  which  have  not 
yet  been  concluded. 

Practically  all  the  works  discovered  in  Pergamon  belong  to 

1  Some  ancient  writers  call  the  city  Pergame,  a  few  others  Pergama, 
and  the  majority  Pergamon. 

2  The  subjects  of  these  statues  were  properly  recognized  by  Nibby  in 
1821,  and  Raoul-Rochette  in  1830. 

3  For  a  report  of  the  new  excavations  up  to  June,  1903,  see  J.  If.  Sn 
1903.  PP-  335ff- 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  277 

the  reign  of  Eumenes  II,  197-159  before  Christ;  while  all  the 
works  identified  with  Pergamon  before  the  excavations  began 
belong  to  the  reign  of  his  predecessor,  Attalos  I,  241-197 
before  Christ  The  art  of  Pergamon  is,  therefore,  subdivided 
into  two  schools. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  PERGAMON.  Pergamon  makes  its  appear- 
ance in  history  late,  but  at  once  with  great  splendor.  It  was 
an  unimportant  town  down  to  the  third  century  before  Christ, 
mentioned  only  as  the  entrance  place  to  the  country  beyond. 
The  summit  of  the  hill,  however,  was  fortified,  and  here 
Lysimachos,  one  of  Alexander's  successors,  stored  a  great 
treasure.  Philetairos  had  been  left  in  charge  of  Pergamon,  but 
revolted  when  the  cruel  reign  of  Lysimachos  proved  to  be  too 
provoking.  He  declared  his  independence  and  was  able  to 
maintain  it.  At  his  death  in  263  he  was  succeeded  by  Eu- 
menes I,  the  son  of  his  brother,  who  reigned  to  241.  With 
Attalos  I,  241-197,  the  real  glory  of  Pergamon  began, 'won 
with  many  hardships  ;  for  the  Gauls,  who,  after  their  defeats 
in  Rome  and  in  Delphi,  had  turned  to  Asia  Minor,  men- 
aced Pergamon  until  Attalos,  in  several  successful  battles, 
succeeded  in  transforming  the  fierce  Gauls  to  the  mild  Gala- 
tions,  to  whom  St.  Paul  addressed  his  letters.  Attalos  there- 
upon called  himself  king,  and  caused  many  statues  to  be 
erected  in  honor  of  his  victories.  In  221,  hard  pressed  by 
Antiochos  III,  he  allied  himself  with  Rome.  This  friendship 
with  Rome  continued  throughout  the  reign  of  his  successor, 
Eumenes  II,  197-159,  who  extended  his  realm  until  it  included 
almost  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor.  He  enlarged  his  citadel,  and 
spent  much  of  his  wealth  in  beautifying  Pergamon.  Attalos  II, 
159-138,  continued  an  uneventful  reign  of  splendor,  and 
Attalos  III,  138-133,  willed  his  empire  at  his  death  to  Rome 
—  at  least  so  the  Romans  chose  to  interpret  his  last  will  and 
testament.  The  Romans  assumed  active  command  in  129; 


278  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

and  Pergamon  no  doubt  came  in  for  its  share  of  prosperity  as 
long  as  the  power  of  Rome  lasted.  With  the  reverses  of 
Rome,  Pergamon  also  declined  and  —  at  a  date  unknown  — 
was  abandoned.  Eventually  a  new  settlement  grew  up  in  the 
valley  at  the  foot  of  the  old  citadel  hill,  which  was  frequently 
used  as  a  fortress.  The  modern  city  is  named  Bergama,  and 
has  a  mixed  population  of  Turks,  Greeks,  Armenians  and 
Jews,  amounting  to  about  twenty  thousand  inhabitants. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.  The  bibliography,  including  monographs, 
on  Pergamon  is  very  large.  The  large  official  German  publi- 
cation is,  of  course,  the  standard  book.  In  addition,  the  Berlin 
museums  have  issued  several  pamphlets.  An  excellent  account 
is  given  in  Baumeister  s.  v.  "  Pergamon"  ;  also  J.  H.  S.,  Ill, 
pp.  3Oiff. ;  IV,  pp.  i22ff. ;  VI,  pp.  1026°. ;  VII ,  pp.  2510°.  The 
arrangement  of  the  large  frieze  from  the  Altar  of  Pergamon  is 
discussed  by  H.  Schrader,  Sitzb.  Berl.  Akad.,  1899,  pp.  612- 
625,  (reviewed,  A.  J.  A.,  IV,  1900,  p.  342)  ;  and  that  of  the 
Telephos  frieze,  by  the  sa.rt\Q,  Jarhbuch  XV,  1900,  pp.  97-135 
(review,  A.  J.  A.,  V,  1901,  p.  229),  and  by  Carl  Robert,  Jahr- 
buch  II,  pp.  2446%  and  III,  pp.  45  ff.,  87ff. 

For  further  bibliography  see  Overbeck  II,  pp.  288ff.,  and  the 
remarks  to  Plates  257-269. 

For  some  of  the  statues  and  heads  that  have  been  assigned 
to  Pergamon  on  the  strength  of  resemblances  to  undoubtedly 
Pergamon  works,  see  L.  R.  Farnell,  _/.  H.  S.,  XI,  pp.  181-209  ; 
and  Plate  2693. 

For  two  of  the  recent  discoveries,  see  Plate  308,  and  the 
head  of  a  man,  Antike  Denkmaler  II,  Plate  48.  For  the 
Warrior  from  Delos,  see  Plate  287. 

PLATES  257  and  258.  Dying  Gaul.  Of  marble.  Capitoline,  Rome. 
Discovered,  exact  place  and  date  unknown,  but  probably  in  Rome  in  the 
sixteenth  century;  formerly  in  the  Villa  Ludovisi,  but  removed  during 
the  papacy  of  Clement  XII  (1730-1740)  to  the  Capitoline.  Restora- 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  279 

tions :  the  tip  of  the  nose,  the  left  knee,  all  the  toes,  and  the  part  of 
the  plinth  on  which  the  right  hand  rests,  including  of  course,  the  hand 
and  a  part  of  the  horn.  The  right  arm  is  antique.  It  was  broken  off 
and  used  to  be  considered  a  restoration.  E.  von  Mach,  3i5ff. ;  Helbig, 
533  ;  F.  W.,  1412  ;  Robinson,  654;  Reinach  I,  530,  2.  Full  bibliography 
in  Helbig  and  F.  W.  For  the  theory  that  the  statue  is  the  Tubicen  of 
Epigonos,  mentioned  by  Pliny  (N.  ff.,  34,  88),  see  Jarhbuch  VIII,  pp. 
129-131.  For  the  authoritative  arguments  against  this  theory,  see 
Rom.  Mitlh.,  VIII,  1894,  p.  253.  For  the  discussion  of  whether  the 
Gaul  dies  of  a  self-inflicted  wound  or  not,  see  Chr.  Belger,  Jahrbuch 
III,  1888,  pp.  I5off.,  and  Overbeck  I,  p.  251.  For  a  torso  in  Dresden 
resembling  the  Dying  Gaul,  see  Overbeck  II,  p.  257,  fig.  196,  and 
B.  C.  H.,  1889,  p.  1 88. 


The  once  popular  name  of  "  Dying  Gladiator "  for  this 
statue  has  long  since  z  been  abandoned.  In  the  first  place,  the 
statue  undoubtedly  belongs  to  Greek  times,  and  the  Greeks 
knew  nothing  of  gladiators ;  and  secondly,  the  figure  is  that  of 
a  Gaul  as  Gauls  are  described  by  ancient  writers.  Unlike  the 
Greeks  or  the  Romans,  they  wore  moustaches,  but  shaved  the 
rest  of  their  faces.  They  annointed  their  hair  until  it  became 
so  thick  it  "  was  like  the  manes  of  horses,"  and  they  combed 
it  back,  which  gave  them  the  appearance  of  "  satyrs  or  Pans." 
They  also  wore  gold  torques 2  or  necklaces. 

Such  a  type  of  barbarian  is  most  admirably  reproduced  in 
the  Capitoline  statue,  "not  only  in  the  face,"  says  Helbig, 
"  but  also  in  the  forms  of  the  body.  The  massive  extremities, 
the  large  bones,  the  coarse  and  unelastic  skin  are  all  instances 
of  this." 

The  original  of  this  statue  was  doubtless  one  of  those  which 
Attalos  erected  in  honor  of  his  victory  over  the  fierce  Gauls 


1  Nibby  in  1821  recognized  the  statue  to  be  a  Gaul.     2Well  known 
in  antiquity,  owing  to  the  story  connected  with  T.  Manlius  Torquatus. 


280  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

who  had  infested  Asia  Minor.  Lord  Byron,  misreading  the 
character  of  this  Gaul,  wrote  of  him  the  famous  lines,  in  which 
he  said  the  Gaul  "consents  to  death,  but  conquers  agony." 
This  sentiment  is  ill  applied  to  the  fierce  nature  of  the  bar- 
barian, who  unlike  the  Greeks,  dies  unwillingly,  struggling  l 
against  death  to  the  last. 

Valuable  comparisons  are  made  between  this  statue  and  the 
Gaul,  Plate  2643.,  and  the  fallen  warrior  from  Aigina,  Plate  79. 

PLATE  259.  Gaul  and  His  Wife.  Of  marble.  Terme,  Rome; 
formerly  Boncampagni-Ludovisi  Collection.  Date  and  place  of  dis- 
covery unknown.  The  group  was  known  as  early  as  1632.  Restora- 
tions :  on  the  Gaul,  the  right  arm  and  the  greater  part  of  the  sword, 
the  lower  half  of  the  nose,  the  left  lower  arm  down  to  the  wrist,  the 
index  finger  of  the  left  hand,  the  floating  part  of  the  drapery  and  the 
support;  on  the  woman,  the  nose,  almost  the  entire  left  arm,  the  lower 
part  of  th«  right  forearm,  with  the  hand,  four  toes  on  the  right  foot, 
and  parts  of  the  drapery.  The  group  used  to  be  called  Paetus  and 
Arria  ;  it  was  identified  as  a  Gaul  and  his  wife  by  Raoul-Rochette  in 
1830.  Helbig,  884;  F.  W.,  1413;  Robinson,  655;  Overbeck  II,  pp. 
25off.  ;  Reinach  I,  498,  i. 

Like  the  Dying  Gaul,  Plates  25  yf.,  this  group  has  been 
recognized  as  belonging  to  the  first  school  of  Pergamon,  It  is 
the  copy  of  one  of  the  monuments  which  Attalos  I  (241-197 
B.  C.)  erected  in  honor  of  his  victories  over  the  Gauls.  The 
statues,  therefore,  were  to  represent  the  wild,  un-Greek  quality 
of  the  barbarians  ;  and  it  must  be  granted  that  the  artists  have 
succeeded  well.  In  this  Gaul,  who  has  just  killed  his  wife, 
and  who  is  pushing  his  sword  into  his  own  throat  to  escape 
slavery,  one  sees  revealed  at  a  glance  the  completeness  of  the 
victory  of  Attalos,  a  victory  which  is  the  more  remarkable  as 
it  has  been  won  over  foes  who  shrink  from  nothing. 


1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  statue  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 
and  340. 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  281 

Unlike  the  majority  of  Greek  groups,  the  Gaul  and  his  wife 
are  designed  as  statues  in  the  round,  with  no  one  view  offering 
an  advantage  over  the  others,  because  this  one  view  alone 
would  show  the  lines  and  masses  harmoniously  distributed.1 
With  its  modern  restorations,  it  is  impossible  to  get  a  good 
view  of  the  face  of  the  Gaul  and  his  wife  at  the  same  time.  It 
has,  therefore,  been  suggested  that  the  right  arm  of  the  Gaul 
be  restored  differently,  with  the  little  finger  instead  of  the 
thumb  down.  This  changes  the  position  of  the  elbow ;  it 
becomes  possible  to  turn  the  group  more  to  the  right  (from 
the  spectator's  point  of  view)  and  to  get  a  better  profile  view 
of  the  face  of  the  Gaul.  The  objection  to  such  a  change  of 
the  right  arm  lies  in  the  fact  that  now  the  Gaul  holds  his  sword 
as  he  did  when  he  was  fighting  the  enemy.  Defeat  has  come 
swiftly ;  he  has  not  had  time  to  change  his  hold  on  the  hilt  of 
his  sword  before  he  has  been  driven  to  the  extreme  deed  in 
order  to  avoid  capture  for  his  wife  and  for  himself. 

One  other  group  is  known  in  Greek  art  of  a  man  in  the 
shadow  of  death  and  a  woman  dying  on  his  knee.  It  is  one 
of  the  Niobids,  Plate  224  and  Text  Illustration  41.  The 
Niobid  is  represented  as  a  Greek,  with  Greek  thoughts  and 
emotions ;  the  Ludovisi  statue  is  a  barbarian.  His  very  figure 
suggests  the  importance  of  the  victory  of  Attalos,  which  meant 
the  supremacy  of  the  nobility  of  Greek  ideas  over  the  fierce- 
ness of  barbarian  passions. 

PLATE  260.    Scythian  Slave  Sharpening  His  Knife,  "L'Arro- 

tino."  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence.  Found  in  Rome,  exact 
date  unknown,  but  earlier  than  1583.  Restorations:  the  forefinger  of 
the  right  hand,  the  thumb  and  two  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  the  tip  of 
the  nose  and  a  few  minor  pieces.  Amelung,  68  ;  F.  W.,  1414  ;  Reinach 
I,  286,  1-3. 

1  See  the  discussion  to  Plate  254. 


282  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

PLATE  261.  Marsyas  and  the  Scythian  Sharpening  His  Knife. 
Combination  group  of  Marsyas,  in  the  Louvre,  and  the  Scythian, 
Plate  260. 

The  statue,  Plate  260,  represents  the  type  of  another  race 
of  barbarians,  the  Scythians.  The  forehead  is  receding,  the 
cheek  bones  are  high,  and  the  expression  of  the  face  is  in 
keeping  with  a  low  grade  of  civilization.  The  early  school  of 
Pergamon,  to  which  the  Gauls,  Plates  257-259,  belong,  was 
the  first  to  excel  in  the  characterization  of  foreign  people. 
The  treatment  of  the  body  of  the  Scythian,  accurate  to  nature, 
without  refinement  and  without  attention  to  anatomical  details, 
is  the  same  as  that  of  the  statues  of  the  Gauls.  By  common 
consent,  therefore,  this  figure  is  assigned  to  that  school. 

The  upward  glance  of  the  slave  suggests  that  he  once  formed 
part  of  a  group ;  and  it  is  believed  that  the  other  figure  was 
Marsyas,  who  was  to  be  flayed  by  the  order  of  Apollo.  These 
same  figures  are  seen,  together  with  the  god,  on  the  base  from 
Mantineia,  Plates  210-212,  but  there  an  earlier  moment  of  the 
story  is  represented.  Here  Marsyas  has  lost  in  the  musical 
contest  and  is  on  the  point  of  receiving  his  punishment. 

Several  copies  of  a  Marsyas  hanging  on  the  tree  are  extant.1 
None,  however,  are  in  the  style  of  the  Pergamon  school,  for  all 
are  full  of  anatomical  details  which  the  peculiar  motive  tempted 
the  artists  to  introduce.  The  source  of  all,  however,  may 
have  been  the  figure  once  grouped  with  the  original 2  of  the 
Scythian  in  Florence.  Plate  261  shows  one  of  the  extant 
statues  of  Marsyas  grouped  with  the  Scythian. 

1  See  also  Plate  3370.  2  The  Scythian  in  Florence  cannot  have 
been  the  original  part  of  a  group.  His  base  is  profiled  all  around,  a 
fact  which  clearly  shows  that  this  particular  figure  was  meant  to  stand 
alone. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  283 


The  Attalos  Group. 

The  originals  of  the  group  which  Attalos  I  (241-197  B.  C.) 
sent  '  to  Athens  are  lost.  They  represented  the  battles  between 
the  gods  and  the  giants,  the  Greeks  and  the  Amazons,  the 
Greeks  and  the  Persians,  and  his  own  exploits  against  the 
Gauls.  They  were  small,  their  size  being  only  about  three 
feet,  and  were  probably  of  bronze.  Reproductions  of  a  few 
of  the  figures  are  extant.  The  majority  are  in  the  Museum 
in  Naples  ;  and  it  is  a  notable  fact  that  only  copies  of  the 
defeated  antagonists  and  none  of  the  victors2  are  preserved. 
Plate  263  is  a  giant  of  the  Gigantomachia,  Plate  262  an 
Amazon  of  the  fight  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Amazons,  Plate 
264!)  a  Persian,  and  Plate  264a  a  Gaul. 

For  a  complete  list  of  all  the  extant  figures  see  Brunn, 
Annali,  1870,  pp.  2926^.  ;  Overbeck  II,  fig.  189,  containing 
twelve  pictures;  and  M\c\\a.e\\?>,Jahrbuch  VIII,  1903,  pp. 


PLATE  262.  Dead  Amazon.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples.  Dis- 
covered in  Rome  in  1514  in  the  cellar  of  a  convent.  It  passed  from 
the  possession  of  the  Medici  family  to  the  Farnese  family  in  1  538,  and 
eventually,  with  the  Farnese  collection,  to  the  Museum  in  Naples. 
Restorations:  the  left  foot.  E.  von  Mach,  3i6ff.  ;  Robinson,  670; 
Reinach  I,  482,  2  ;  M.icha.e\is,_fa/irl>ue:/i  VIII,  1893,  PP>  H9ff->  especially 
p.  122,  reproducing  the  picture  of  the  Amazon,  made  about  1540. 
There  was  then  a  baby  3  grouped  with  the  Amazon.  This  baby, 

'See  Pausanias  I,  25,  2,  and  Plut.  Anton.,  60,  or  S.  Q.,  1995  and 
1996. 

2  The  inference  that  only  the  defeated  people  were  represented  in  the 
group  is  contradicted,  in  that  one  of  the  gods,  Dionysos,  is  mentioned 
in  ancient  literature. 

3  The  customary  version  of  the  Amazon  myth  in  Asia  was  that  they 
were  also  mothers. 


284  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Michaelis  believed,  was  antique  and  subsequently  removed.  Petersen, 
Rom.  Mitth.,  1893,  pp.  25iff.,  takes  the  opposite  view;  the  baby  was  a 
modern  addition,  which  later,  when  recognized  as  such,  was  removed. 
Overbeck  and  Kliigmann  (see  Overbeck  II,  p.  289,  note  20)  agree  with 
Petersen.  For  the  motive,  compare  Virgil,  ALneid  XI,  803  and  804. 

PLATE  263.  Dead  Giant.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples.  For 
date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  262.  Restora- 
tions :  half  of  left  lower  leg,  the  fingers  of  the  right  hand  and  the  nose. 

PLATE  264a.  Dying  Gaul.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples.  For 
date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  262.  Restora- 
tions :  the  left  arm,  several  fingers  of  the  right  hand,  the  right  foot  and 
the  toes  of  the  left  foot.  Robinson,  669 ;  Reinach  I,  523,  3. 

PLATE  264b.  Dead  Persian.1  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples.  For 
date  and  place  of  discovery  see  the  remarks  to  Plate  262.  Restora- 
tions :  both  arms,  the  right  leg  from  the  knee  down,  and  part  of  the 
sword.  Robinson,  669;  Reinach  I,  531,  3. 

With  a  singularly  keen  touch  the  four  types  here  reproduced 
are  characterized.  Beautiful  even  in  death  is  the  Amazon. 
Her  repose  is  peaceful,  "  such 2  as  the  Greeks  desired  for 
themselves  and  those  they  liked."  And  they  always  liked  the 
Amazons,  although  they  often  carved  their  mythical  fight  with 
them  ;  for  if  they  had  not  loved  them  so  well,  they  would  not 
have  represented  them  so  beautiful  as  they  did  everywhere, 
notably  on  the  Maussolleion  frieze,  Plates  228-230. 

The  giant,  Plate  263,  in  spite  of  his  reduced  size,  reveals 
not  only  his  own  powerful  strength  and  unbridled  passion,  but 
also  the  power  of  the  gods,  before  whom  he  could  not  survive. 

The  Gaul,  Plate  2643,  is  perhaps  the  least  satisfactory  of  all 
these  figures.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  one  cannot 

1  For  the  head  of  a  dead  Persian  belonging  to  a  much  larger  statn» , 
but  of  the  same  general  style,  see  Springer-Michaelis  I,  fig.  497;  Hel'uig, 
1025.  2  Quoted  from  E.  von  Mach,  p.  317. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  285 

help  comparing  him  with  the  Dying  Gaul,  Plate  257.  He 
represents  practically  the  same  motive  as  the  larger  statue,  but 
with  less  vigor.  He  is  not  so  distinctly  the  fierce  barbarian  ; 
for  a  sense  of  humility  and  submission  seems  to  be  conveyed 
by  his  helpless  attitude. 

The  Persian,  Plate  264b,  is  dead.  Clad  in  his  national  cos- 
tume with  long  trousers,  which  the  Greeks  always  considered 
to  be  the  sign  of  the  weakling,  he  has  selected  for  himself, 
even  in  the  hour  of  death,  a  comfortable  position.  He  lies 
gracefully,  but  no  Greek  ever  would  desire  to  die  like  him. 
The  contrast  between  him  and  the  Amazon,  Plate  262,  is  the 
greater,  as  hers  is  undoubtedly  the  more  manly  way  of  meet- 
ing death. 

PLATE  265.  The  Altar  Of  Pergamon.  Reconstruction  in  the 
Pergamon  Museum  in  Berlin.  For  date  of  discovery  and  bibliography 
see  above  introduction  to  the  Art  of  Pergamon.  For  mention  of  the 
altar  in  ancient  literature  see  .Stuart-Jones,  No.  264,  and  Revelation  of 
St.  John,  Chapter  2,  Verses  12  and  13.  A  picture  of  the  altar  is  on  a 
coin  struck  in  Pergamon  between  193  and  211  of  our  era ;  see  Arch. 
Anz.,  1902,  p.  12,  fig.  i.  For  another  view  of  the  reconstructed  altar 
see  E.  von  Mach,  Plate  facing  p.  314.  The  large  outside  frieze,  visible 
on  Plate  265,  represents  the  Gigantomachia,  fight  between  the  gods 
and  the  giants.  Plates  266  and  267  reproduce  four  slabs  from  it.  In- 
side the  colonnade  there  is  another  smaller  frieze  with  representations 
of  the  legend  of  Telephos.  This  frieze  is  less  well-preserved. 

PLATES  266  and  26r.  Four  Slabs  of  the  Large  Frieze  of  the 
Pergamon  Altar.  Of  marble.  Pergamon  Museum,  Berlin. 

PLATES  268a  and  268b.  Dionysos  and  Selene  from  the  Large 
Frieze  Of  the  Pergamon  Altar.  Of  marble.  Pergamon  Museum, 
Berlin. 

The  first  impression  of  the  reliefs  in  the  Pergamon  Museum 
in  Berlin  is  overpowering  and  oppressive,  because  it  is  impos- 
sible to  step  back  to  the  distance  for  which  the  reliefs  were 


2 86  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

designed.  Placed  on  the  hill  in  Pergamon,  the  altar  was 
visible  from  far  off,  so  that  the  reliefs  had  to  be  powerful  if 
they  were  to  be  recognized  at  once  as  decorations. 

The  next  observation  is  that  the  artists  have  shown  re- 
markable skill  in  combining  the  several  groups  into  one  con- 
tinuous and  harmonious  whole,  without  lessening  in  the  least 
the  unity  of  the  several  compositions.  The  subject  of  the 
Gigantomachia  is  an  old  one.  It  is  found,  among  others,  on 
the  treasury  of  the  Megarians  in  Olympia,  Plate  46,  on  the 
metopes  from  Selinus,  Text  Illustrations  8  and  9,  and  on  the 
east  metopes  of  the  Parthenon.  It  occurs  again  later  on  the 
frieze  of  the  temple  of  Hera  at  Lagina  (two  hours  northeast 
of  Stratonike),  which  dates  probably  from  the  time  of  Sulla.1 
There,  however,  the  subjects  have  been  separated  into  indi- 
vidual groups.2 

In  studying  the  several  scenes  of  the  fighting  gods  and  giants 
on  the  Pergamon  Altar,  many  well-known  figures  appear. 
Athena,  Plate  266b,  reproduces  the  type  of  Athena  of  the 
Madrid  relief,  Text  Illustration  30  ;  and  Apollo,  Plate  26ya, 
forcefully  reminds  one  of  the  Apollo  Belvedere,  Plate  272.' 
Overbeck  has  drawn  the  conclusion  from  such  borrowings  on 
the  part  of  the  Pergamon  sculptors  that,  "  in  this  late  Greek 
art  the  artists  had  begun  to  lose  their  keen  perception  of  the 
purely  ideal,  while  their  power  of  invention  had  become  ex- 
tremely active  in  respect  to  historic  realism,  as  is  proved  by 
the  remains  of  their  representations  of  Gauls."  (See  Plates 


1  Ares  there  appears  in  the  garb  of  a  Roman. 

2  See  B.  C.  ff,,  19,  1895,  Plates  X-XV. 

3  Further   correspondences    between    Pergamon   figures   and    other 
known  statues  and  reliefs  are  pointed  out  in  Overbeck  II,  pp. 

See  also  the  official  publications. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  287 

The  feeling  for  lines  and  masses  in  these  reliefs  is  pro- 
nounced, if  not  delicate.  The  eye  is  pleased  and  appalled  in 
turn.  Graceful  forms,  like  that  of  Nike,  Plate  2663,  are  re- 
vealed only  by  assiduous  study,  so  surrounded  they  are  by 
giants  and  coiling  snakes  and  fanciful  wings.  There  is,  how- 
ever, never  any  disorder,  as  even  the  most  casual  and  be- 
wildered glance  perceives. 

In  the  case  of  the  individual  gods  whose  names '  were 
inscribed  on  the  blocks  above  them,  a  certain  character  deline- 
ation is  noticeable.  Athena,  Plate  266b,  the  patron  goddess 
also  of  Pergamon,  sweeps  on,  met  by  Nike,  always  victorious. 
The  giant  has  sunk  before  her,  even  though  no  weapon  is  in 
her  hand.  In  vain  his  mother  Gez  appears  to  ask  mercy  for 
her  son.  He  who  rises  against  Athena  must  fall ;  his  very 
attempt  is  his  curse. 

In  Dionysos,3  Plate  268a,  in  spite  of  his  fighting  attitude,  the 
character  of  the  beautiful  patron  god  of  wine  and  happiness  is 
undisguised. 

Zeus,  Plate  266a,  seems  to  be  the  Olympian  Zeus  of  Phei- 
dias  risen  from  his  throne.  His  mildness  has  given  way  to 
righteous  wrath,  and  with  his  drapery  still  arranged  as  Pheidias 
had  designed  it,  he  raises  his  arm  to  hurl  his  thunder  bolts  4  at 
the  mightiest  of  the  giants  who  have  dared  to  attack  him. 

And  Selene  s,  Plate  268b,  to  mention  only  one  other,  glides 

1  The  names  of  the  giants  were  inscribed  below. 

2  Ge  is  the  Greek  Mother  Earth.     The  word  is  akin  to  the  first  part 
of  the  name  Demeter. 

3  Dionysos  is  accompanied  by  two  satyrs.     Of  the  second  little  satyr 
only  the  arm  is  preserved. 

4  Poverty  of  imagination  seems  to  account  for  the  actual  thunder- 
bolt stuck  in  the  leg  of  the  giant  to  the  left  of  Zeus. 

5  Selene  is  the  goddess  of  the  moon.     Compare  the  Selene  from  the 
Parthenon,  Plate  I4ob. 


288  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

on  with  the  even  grace  which  is  traditional  of  the  movements 
of  the  moon. 

The  giants  are  not  less  characteristic.  They  are  colossal  in 
strength,  not  by  means  of  the  perfect  development  of  divine  ' 
bodies ;  for  they  are,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  monsters,  with 
snakes  instead  of  legs,  with  tails  and  with  wings.  Snakes  can 
assume  almost  any  position  or  fill  any  space  without  doing 
violence  to  natural  semblance.  They  were,  therefore,  very 
welcome  in  a  design  in  which  no  empty  spaces  were  permitted. 

The  heads  of  the  giants,  which  appear  in  their  true  light 
only  when  they  are  compared  with  heads  like  that  of  Laokoon, 
for  instance,  Plates  270  and  484,  are  worthy  of  careful  study. 
In  the  case  of  Laokoon  "  one 2  feels  that  the  forehead  can  be 
straightened  and  that  the  eyes  can  shine  with  the  kind  dignity 
of  Zeus  (Plate  487).  It  is  just  the  opposite  with  the  giants. 
Their  deep-set  eyes  and  darkened  brows  are  theirs  always. 
They  are,  as  their  features  imply,  a  fierce  and  unjust  race." 

PLATE  269a.  Goddess.  Of  marble.  Capitoline  Museum.  Date 
and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Cesi. 
Acquired  for  the  Capitoline  Museum  under  Clemftnt  XI  (1700-1721). 
Restorations :  both  arms,  the  right  foot,  the  nose  and  fragments  of  the 
lips.  The  head,  the  neck  and  the  nude  portions  of  the  bust  and  of  the 
left  shoulder  are  carved  in  a  separate  piece  of  marble  attached  to  the 
body.  Helbig,  532 ;  Reinach  I,  200,  2. 

Several  technical  peculiarities  have  induced  scholars  to  assign 
this  statue  to  the  school  of  Pergamon.  In  the  first  place,  the 
so-called  closet  folds  3  are  indicated  in  the  drapery,  as  is  fre- 
quently the  case  in  the  Pergamon  frieze,  Plates  265ff.  These 

1  To  the  Greek  mind,  nothing  was  more  divine  than  the  human  body. 

2  Quoted  from  E.  von  Mach,  p.  313. 

3  Hardly  visible  in  the  picture. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  289 

closet  folds  are  the  "  horizontal '  lines  made  in  the  mantle 
when  lying  folded  up  in  the  closet."  The  first  instance  of 
carving  them  is  found  in  the  statues  of  Maussollos  and  Arte- 
misia, Plate  404,  but  they  are  frequent  only  in  the  Pergamon 
school  of  sculpture.  Secondly,  "  the  arrangement  and  style  of 
the  drapery  occur  in  a  statue  found  at  Pergamon.  And  lastly, 
the  hem  of  the  neck  of  the  chiton  often  appears  on  drapery 
carved  by  Pergamenian  sculptors." 

The  head  of  the  statue  seems  to  copy  a  distinctly  earlier 
type,  that  of  Skopas.  Helbig,  however,  argues  convincingly 
that  this  fact  speaks  rather  in  favor  of  a  Pergamon  origin  of 
the  statue  than  against  it.  Skopas  was  a  favorite  with  the 
sculptors  of  Pergamon,  as  with  many  artists  of  the  Hellenistic 
age.  The  Pergamon  sculptors,  as  was  seen  in  the  discussion 
of  the  altar  frieze,  Plates  265ff.,  did  not  object  to  copying 
earlier  types.  "  It  need  not,  therefore,  appear  strange  that  a 
Pergamenian  artist  has  on  one  occasion  exactly  reproduced 
such  a  type,  if  it,  according  to  his  view,  gave  most  complete 
expression  to  the  ideal  he  wished  to  reproduce." 

The  School  of  Priene. 

The  ruins  of  the  temple  of  Athena  Polias  in  Priene  contain 
a  dedicatory  inscription  of  Alexander  of  Macedon.  The  re- 
liefs, however,  which  were  excavated  in  1869,  and  are  now  in 
the  British  Museum,  London,  belong  probably 2  to  the  recon- 
struction of  the  temple  under  Orophernes  at  about  158  B.  C. 
They  are  very  fragmentary,  but  show  many  points  of  resem- 

1  Quoted  from  Helbig,  532.  Such  folds  may  be  used  in  the  attempt 
to  assign  a  date  to  an  ancient  statue  just  as  well  as  the  creases  in  the 
trousers  on  modern  statues  indicate  their  very  recent  origin.  Such 
creases  were  unknown  a  generation  ago. 

2  See  Wolters,  Jahrbuch,  1886,  pp.  56ff.,  and  Overbeck  II,  p.  405. 


$9°  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

blance  with  the  large  frieze  from  Pergamon.  They  are,  how- 
ever, less  powerful  and  in  places  even  weak  rather  than 
vigorous.  Together  with  these  reliefs '  several  statues  were 
found,  the  exact  date  of  which  it  is  the  more  difficult  to  ascer- 
tain, as  it  was  the  practice  of  many  artists  to  adapt  earlier 
types.  The  most  interesting  of  these  statues  is  reproduced  on 
Plate  2695. 

PLATE  2691s.    Draped  Female  Statue  from  Priene.    Of  marble. 

British  Museum,  London.  Discovered  in  Priene  in  1869.  British 
Museum  Catalogue,  1154;  Reinach  I,  673,  5.  The  holes  in  the  belt 
served  for  the  attachment  of  some  metallic  ornament. 

At  first  sight  this  statue  calls  to  mind  the  Charioteer  of 
Delphi,  Plate  60.  A  more  detailed  comparison,  however,  re- 
veals more  points  of  difference  than  of  resemblance.  Not 
only  does  the  woman  from  Priene  wear  two  garments,2  but  her 
upper  garment  also  is  arranged  with  a  freedom  and  an  atten- 
tion to  graceful  simplicity  that  show  the  skilled  artist.  The 
simplicity  of  the  Charioteer  appears  hard  by  contrast,  and  the 
limitations  of  the  sculptor  are  never  seen  more  clearly  than 
when  his  work  is  studied  side  by  side  with  the  woman  from 
Priene.  This  latter  work,  on  the  other  hand,  deserves  the 
greater  admiration,  as  all  its  improvements  are  due  to  the 
exercise  of  a  fine  perception  of  the  beautiful,  and  a  moder- 
ate use  of  the  many  devices  which  the  advanced  skill  of  the 
artist  placed  at  his  disposal.  He  has  posed  his  statue  differ- 
ently, permitting  her  to  draw  back  her  right  leg,  and  he  has 
lengthened  her  garment.  By  means  of  these  two  devices,  he 
has  transformed  the  beautiful,  although  somewhat  stiff,  Char- 
ioteer into  the  impressive  statue  of  Priene. 

'See  the  plate  containing  seven  samples  in  Overbeck  II,  facing 
p.  405.  2  The  sleeves  of  the  thin  lower  garment  are  seen  on  the  upper 
arms. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  291 


The  School  of  Rhodes. 

PLATES  270.  Laokob'n,  by  Agesander,  Polydoros,  and  Athen- 
Odoros.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome,  Discovered  near  the  Baths  of 
Titus  in  Rome  in  1506.  Restorations:  the  right  arm  of  Laokoon,  the 
right  arm  of  the  younger  son,  and  the  right  hand  of  the  other  son. 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3iiff.;  Helbig,  153;  F.  W.,  1422;  Robinson,  656 ; 
Reinach  I,  504,  2.  See  also  Lessing's  Laokoon,  edition  by  Blumner, 
and  the  bibliography  there  given.  Excellent  bibliography  also  in  Hel- 
big, 153;  Jahrbuch  VI,  1891,  pp.  I77ff.,  and  IX,  pp.  43ff.,  on  Laokoon 
monuments  and  inscriptions.  See  also  Jahrbuch  VI,  1891,  Plate  III,  a 
Laokoon  head  in  the  Museo  Civico  in  Bologna. 

Pliny  mentions  in  his  Natural  History r  a  statue  of  Laokoon 
and  his  sons  in  the  palace  of  Titus,  as  a  work  to  be  preferred 
to  all  other  statues  and  paintings.  He  gives  the  names  of  the 
artists  as  Agesander  of  Rhodes  and  his  two  sons,  Polydoros 
and  Athenodoros,  and  adds  a  brief  description  of  the  statue, 
by  means  of  which  the  Laokoon  now  in  the  Vatican  has  been 
identified  as  undoubtedly  the  work  of  which  he  speaks. 

Unfortunately  his  account  contains  no  hint  as  to  the  date  of 
the  Rhodian  sculptors,  nor  has  the  most  assiduous  study  of  all 
available  sources  yielded  any  definite  indication.  The  internal 
evidence  drawn  from  the  group  itself  is  not  conclusive,  be- 
cause no  other  group  is  extant  with  which  it  can  be  com- 
pared. Agesander  and  his  sons  were  men  of  genius,  and 
genius  may  appear  at  almost  any  time.  The  only  point  on 
which  one  can  feel  fairly  sure  is  that  the  Laokoon,  with  his 
intensity  of  emotion  bursting  the  bonds  of  all  aesthetic  beauty, 
is  unthinkable  earlier  than,  or  even  during,  the  age  of  Prax- 
iteles. Laokoon  has  been  compared  with  the  giants  of  the 

lJV.ff.,  36,  37. 


292  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

frieze  from  Pergamon,  but  the  conclusions  have  varied,  some 
scholars  vehemently  asserting  that  he  must  be  later,  while  others 
just  as  firmly  insist  that  he  must  be  earlier.  He  belongs  to 
the  Hellenistic  age ;  that  is  about  as  far  as  one  may  safely  go 
in  one's  attempt  at  dating  him. 

Before  one  can  proceed  to  appreciate  the  statue  as  a  work 
of  art,  information  must  be  gained  on  two  points.  In  the  first 
place,  the  restorations,  the  right  arms  of  Laokoon  and  his 
younger  son,  are  wrong.  The  arm  of  Laokoon  ought  to  be 
bent  back  and  his  hand  rest  on  his  head,  slightly  above  his 
right  ear,  where  the  end  of  one  of  the  locks  is  cut  away.  The 
arm  of  the  boy,  who  is  almost  dead,  ought  to  fall  limp  by  his 
side. 

In  the  second  place,  the  story  of  Laokoon,  well  known  in 
antiquity,  was  current  in  several  variants.  Which  one  of  these 
had  currency  in  Rhodes  or  in  the  place  for  which  the  group 
was  designed,  we  have  no  means  of  judging.  The  best 
known  legend  in  modern  times  is  that  derived  from  Virgil, 
whose  account  makes  of  Laokoon  an  innocent  sufferer  at  the 
hands  of  unjust  gods.  This  probably  was  the  original  story. 
The  Greeks,  however,  were  jealous  at  all  times  of  the  reputa- 
tion of  their  gods,  and  often  altered  old  stories  so  that  they 
might  better  conform  to  new  ideas.  Sophokles  wrote  a 
tragedy,  Laokoon,  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  and  from 
the  few  fragments  that  are  extant  of  his  work,  it  seems  he  im- 
puted shameful  deeds  to  Laokoon,  who  thus  met  a  just  fate. 

Our  instincts  do  not  revolt  against  seeing  the  guilty  man 
suffer,  but  against  having  the  unjust  fate  of  the  innocent  man 
portrayed.  Our  conception,  therefore,  of  the  character  of  Lao- 
koon will  be  a  determining  factor  in  our  estimate  of  his  statue. 
The  artist  has  the  right  to  take  this  into  account,  provided  he 
enables  us  to  see  the  character  of  Laokoon  in  his  work.  When 
this  is  not  the  case,  as  in  this  statue,  we  are  compelled  to 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  293 

judge  of  the  work  only  according  to  visible  actualities ;  and 
then  our  judgment  must  be  adverse  ;  for  if  it  were  not  for  the 
cruel  sense  of  curiosity  innate  in  most  people,  all  would  turn 
their  backs  upon  the  agonies  portrayed  in  this  group.  They 
would  do  this  the  more  vehemently  as  the  remarkable  skill  of 
the  artists  seems  to  have  filled  with  horrible  pain  not  marble 
statues,  but  actual,  living  beings.1 

As  an  instance  of  skill  the  Laokoon  group  is  unsurpassed. 
One  cannot  see  the  body  of  the  priest  writhing  in  the  ex- 
tremes of  pain,  or  look  into  his  contorted  face,  that  yet  has 
retained  indications  of  its  noble  features,2  without  understand- 
ing the  justice  of  the  saying  of  Pliny,  "  Laokoon  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  all  other  statues  and  paintings ;  "  only  one  wants  to 
add,  "  to  all  that  care  to  be  judged  by  skill  only." 

The  School  of  Tralles. 

PLATE  271.  The  Farnese  Bull.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples. 
Discovered  in  the  Baths  of  Carcaralla  in  Rome,  either  in  1546  or  1547, 
formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Farnese  in  Rome,  since  1786  in  Naples,  at  first 
in  the  public  grounds  of  the  Villa  Reale,  now  in  the  Museum.  Restora- 
tions :  on  Dirke  (the  woman  in  the  foreground),  the  entire  upper  part 
of  the  body  from  the  navel  upward,  and  both  arms  ;  on  Amphion  (the 
man  to  the  spectator's  right),  the  head,  both  arms  but  not  the  hands, 
both  legs  but  not  the  feet,  the  end  of  his  drapery  and  the  upper  part  of 
his  lyre;  on  Zethos,  the  head,  both  arms,  the  left  leg  but  not  the  foot, 
and  the  right  leg ;  on  Antiope  3  (the  woman  back  of  Amphion),  the 
head  and  both  arms,  and  the  spear ;  on  the  Bull,  all  four  legs,  except 
the  hoofs  of  the  hind  legs ;  on  the  Mountain  god  (the  little  figure  below 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  point,  see  E.  von  Mach,  p.  311. 

2  For  the  head  of  Laokoon  see  the  discussion  to  Plates  2651!.  and 
E.  von  Mach,  p.  313. 

3  This  figure  was  broken  about  six  inches  below  the  knee.     It  is 
antique  with  the  exception  of  the  restorations  mentioned  above. 


294  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Amphion),  the  left  arm  and  the  right  forearm ;  the  dog  is  entirely 
modern  except  his  forepaws.  F.  W.,  1402;  Welcker,  Alte  Denkmaler 
I, pp.  365ff.  (the  most  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  group);  Reinach  I, 
483,  2.  For  a  collection  of  ancient  monuments,  gems,  paintings,  re- 
liefs, see  Jahn,  Arch.  Zeit.,  1853,  No.  56,  and  1878,  p.  43f.;  for  the 
recently  discovered  wall  painting,  Text  Illustration  45,  see  E\y,y.Jf.S., 
XVI,  1 896,  p.  152. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  44.    The  Farnese  Bull,  side  view. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  45.  Wall  Painting,  representing  the 
subject  Of  the  Farnese  Bull.  Dining  room,  house  of  the  Vettii, 
Pompeii.  Discovered  in  the  house  of  the  Vettii  during  the  excavations 
of  1894-1895. 

The  subject  of  this  group  is  taken  from  a  Theban  myth, 
which  Euripides  had  treated  in  a  tragedy  called  Antiope,  of 
which  only  fragments  are  preserved.  Dirke,  the  cruel  queen 
of  Thebes,  had  designed  for  Antiope,  the  mother  of  Amphion 
and  Zethos,  the  fate  which  now  is  her  own.  She  had  selected 
the  boys  to  be  the  executioners,  but  when  they  discovered 
that  it  was  their  mother  whom  they  were  bidden  to  tie  to 
the  horns  of  the  bull,  they  turned  against  the  queen,  meting 
out  to  her  the  punishment  which  had  been  designed  for 
Antiope. 

The  copious  restorations  of  the  group  are  substantially  cor- 
rect, with  the  one  exception  that  Zethos,  as  is  known  from  a 
cameo  in  Naples,  held  the  hair  of  Dirke  in  his  hand,  proba- 
bly J  in  order  to  raise  her  sufficiently  to  fasten  the  rope  about 
her  body. 

Pliny  2  mentions  a  marble  group  in  the  gallery  of  Asinius 

1  Another  interpretation  is  that  he  endeavored  to  pull  her  away  from 
Amphion,  to  whose  legs  she  clung,  and  that  the  rope  was  already 
fastened  about  her,  as  is  seen  on  the  cameo.  For  the  objections  to 
this  view  see  Overbeck  II,  p.  342.  2 N.  H,,  36,  34. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  295 

Pollio  in  Rome  in  these  words,  "  In  it  stand  Zethos  and 
Amphion  and  Dirke  and  the  bull  and  the  rope,  all  carved  of 
one  block,  and  brought  from  Rhodes,  the  works  of  Apollonios 
and  Tauriskos."  And  a  little  earlier  he  had  said  that  Tauris- 
kos  was  a  sculptor  of  Tralles,  and  that  the  works  in  the  gallery 
of  Asinius  were  selected  to  form  a  collection  of  general  interest. 

The  Farnese  Bull  is  generally  believed  to  be  the  group  of 
which  Pliny  speaks.  That  the  group  is  not  carved  out  of  one 
block  is  no  objection  to  this  assumption ;  for  Pliny  was  not 
always  accurate  in  his  statements.1 

The  question  has  arisen  whether  the  Farnese  Bull  is  an 
original  or  a  copy.  The  execution  of  the  draperies  seems  to 
be  in  favor  of  a  copy,  but  it  is  little  credible  that  a  composi- 
tion of  such  huge  dimensions,  and  requiring  such  an  amount 
of  time  as  the  Farnese  Bull,  should  have  tempted  any  artist  to 
reproduce  it.  This  would  seem  to  show  that  the  group  in 
Naples  is  the  only  sculptured  group  of  the  subject  that  existed. 
It  need,  however,  not  be  an  original  even  then,  for  it  may 
reproduce  a  painting.  That  such  is  the  case  will  appear  from 
the  following  considerations. 

Pliny  mentions  all  the  figures  of  the  group  except  Antiope. 
In  the  chief  view  of  the  group  Antiope  does  not  appear,  nor» 
does  she  from  any  point  of  view  enter  into  the  action  of  the  / 
participants  in  the  tragedy,  either  actively  or  passively,  although 
it  would  have  been  easy  to  draw  her  closely  into  the  group ; 
she  might  have  exhorted  her  boys,  or  have  received  the  sup- 
plication  for  mercy  of  Dirke.  Her  figure  serves  only  one  pur- 
pose,  and  that  is  to  fill  a  gap  when  one  looks  at  the  group  ^*^ 


1  It  is  possible  to  interpret  Pliny's  expression  ex  uno  lapide  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  Greek  "one  block"  (e. g.,  Anthology  IX,  i,  59),  often 
applied  to  skilful  works  and  possibly  meaning  no  more  than  "  joined 
together  so  as  to  appear  to  be  of  one  block." 


296  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

from  the  right.  If  it  is,  therefore,  assumed  that  the  original 
was  a  painting,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  necessity  of  carving 
the  bull  in  its  entire  length  would  have  led  to  an  unpleas- 
antly empty  space  back  of  Amphion.  The  sculptors  were 
obliged  to  introduce  another  figure ;  and  none  was  so  readily 
inserted  as  Antiope,  whose  presence  on  the  mountain,  where 
the  tragedy  occurred,  was  attested  to  by  the  myth.  The 
original  artist  had  wisely  refrained  from  painting  her.  It  is 
more  natural  to  forgive  the  cruel  deed  of  Amphion  and  Zethos, 
when  one  sees  them  alone  with  the  woman  who  had  plotted 
to  destroy  their  mother,  than  when  the  presence  of  this  mother 
ought  to  temper  the  fierceness  of  their  wrath.  In  her  absence 
one  thinks  of  the  innocence  and  purity  of  Antiope,  and  is  — 
such  is  vindictive  human  nature  —  almost  ready  to  take  part  in 
the  punishment  of  Dirke.  By  the  presence  of  Antiope  all  this 
is  changed.  If  she  is  willing  to  see  the  other  woman  suffer,  she 
herself  forfeits  our  sympathy ;  and,  unable  to  pacify  the  wild 
mood  of  her  sons,  she  appears  to  be  less  innocent  herself. 
With  Antiope  absent,  the  group  is  the  apotheosis  of  right  con- 
quering wrong ;  with  Antiope  present,  it  is  turned  into  the  glori- 
fication of  the  triumph  of  might  over  weakness.  And  there  is, 
finally,  one  other  fine  touch  that  her  absence  lends  to  the  group. 
One  feels  that  up  to  the  very  last  she  may  appear  and  take 
pity  on  Dirke,  and  that  thus  the  awfulness  of  the  suggested 
deed  may  be  averted. 

From  the  mere  study  of  the  composition,  therefore,  one 
reaches  the  conclusion  that  Antiope  is  an  unpleasant  addition, 
although  she  is  necessary  for  the  sculptured  group.  That 
Pliny  should  not  have  mentioned  her,  if  his  description  was 
made  from  this  group,  seems  incredible.  Considering  his 
method  of  work,  however,  this  is  perfectly  natural  if  it  is 
assumed  that  he  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  original 
picture,  or  copies  of  it.  His  statement  then  amounts  to  this  : 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  297 

the  collection  of  Asinius  Pollio  is  full  of  the  most  interesting 
curios.  There  is  even  a  marble  group  of  the  punishment  of 
Dirke,  in  which  all  the  figures  (well  known  in  the  painting), 
Zethos  and  Amphion  and  Dirke  and  even  the  rope,  are  carved 
together  as  if  out  of  one  colossal  block. 

That  this  was  Pliny's  meaning  is  the  more  probable  since 
the  fine  painting  recently  unearthed  in  Pompeii,  Text  Illus- 
tration 45,  tallies  with  the  description  of  Pliny  in  every  re- 
spect. It  is  of  course  not  the  original,1  but  it  readily  suggests 
it.  In  fact  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  a  common  prototype 
for  the  group  in  Naples  and  the  painting  in  Pompeii.  One 
has,  therefore,  the  choice  of  looking  upon  the  sculptor  or 
the  painter  as  the  creator  of  the  original.  That  it  was  the 
painter  is  indubitable.  If  it  had  been  the  sculptor,  the  painter 
copyist  would  have  been  obliged  to  reproduce  also  Antiope, 
which  he  could  easily  have  done  by  arranging  his  figures  dif- 
ferently. Antiope,  therefore,  does  not  belong  to  the  original 
design,  which  means  that  Dirke's  punishment  was  not  invented 
as  a  composition  in  the  round  ;  for  in  this  the  figure  of  Antiope 
is  a  necessity. 

The  date  of  the  original  painting  cannot  be  definitely  ascer- 
tained because  we  know  too  little  of  Greek  painting:  The 
execution  of  the  marble  group,  however,  is  more  readily  as- 
signed to  a  definite  period. 

Nobody  who  has  carefully  studied  the  Pergamon  Altar 
frieze  can  doubt  that  similar  tendencies  are  at  work  also  in 
the  Naples  group.  The  first  impression  of  the  Farnese  Bull  is 
one  of  bewilderment.  The  lines  cross  and  recross  each  other, 
and  the  masses  are  arranged  as  prominent  dots  without  any 
apparent  attempt  at  harmonious  distribution.  The  composi- 
tion is  nevertheless  by  no  means  confused.  A  second  careful 

1  None  of  the  Pompeian  wall  paintings  are  originals. 


298  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

look  at  it  brings  order  out  of  the  apparent  chaos.  This  is 
not  the  kind  of  work  that  appealed  to  artists  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, or  even  the  fourth  century  before  Christ.  Such  work  is 
not  found  earlier  than  the  Pergamon  Altar ;  a  fact,  which,  with 
certainty  assigns  the  sculptors  of  Tralles  to  the  Hellenistic  age. 

PLATE  272.  Apollo  Belvedere.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  "  In 
all  probability  this  statue  was  not  found  at  Antium  (Porto  d'  Anzio),  as 
is  usually  stated,  but  in  a  tenuta  (estate)  of  Cardinal  Giuliano  della 
Rovere,  near  Grotta  Ferriata.  Giuliano,  after  he  had  become  Pope 
Julius  II  (1503-1513)  placed  this  statue  in  the  Belvedere"  (Helbig  p. 
102).  Restorations,  by  Montorsoli:  the  top  of  the  quiver,  both  hands 
and  the  right  forearm,  the  upper  part  of  the  stem,  and  various  small 
fragments  on  the  drapery  and  legs.  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3o8ff.  and  340 ; 
Helbig,  160  ;  F.  W.,  1523  ;  Robinson,  652  ;  Reinach  I,  239,  2.  For  the 
Stroganoff  Apollo  in  St.  Petersburg  see  first  publication  by  Stephani, 
Apollon  Botdromios  (1 860);  Furtwangler,  Meister-werke,  pp.  659-662, 
who  says  this  statuette  is  a  forgery;  Kieseritzky,  A  then.  Mitth.  XXIV, 
1899,  pp.  468-484,  who  says  that  it  is  an  original ;  and  Furtwangler's 
conclusive  rejoinder,  Athen.  Mitth.  XXV,  1900,  pp.  28off.,  who  con- 
tinues to  maintain  that  it  is  a  forgery.  A  picture  of  the  Stroganoff 
Apollo  is  given  in  Helbig,  p.  103.  For  the  attribution  of  the  Apollo 
Belvedere  to  Leochares,  see  Collignon,  Histoire  de  la  Sculpture  Grecque, 
chapter  on  Leochares.  For  the  suggestion  that  the  Apollo  Belvedere 
is  part  of  a  group,  together  with  the  Artemis  of  Versailles,  Plate  296, 
and  an  Athena  in  the  Capitoline  Museum,  see  Overbeck,  Berichte 
der  K.  Sachs,  Gesellschaft  d.  Wisscnschaften,  1867,  pp.  I2iff. ;  and  Over- 
beck  II,  pp.  378ff.  Overbeck  complains  (II,  p.  409,  note  34)  that  his 
arguments  have  not  been  refuted  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  accepted. 
The  fact  is,  his  combination  group  is  perfectly  possible.  It  is,  how- 
ever, not  backed  by  arguments  strong  enough  to  compel  acceptance. 

Montorsoli,  the  restorer  of  Apollo,  found  it  impracticable  to 
add  the  lower  right  arm  without  attaching  it  to  a  support.  He 
added,  therefore,  to  the  height  of  the  tree-trunk.  Originally 
the  arm  was  supported  by  a  block  from  Apollo's  right  leg, 
where  the  place  of  attachment  is  still  visible.  Its  direction 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  299 

shows  that  the  arm  ought  to  be  brought  forward  to  the  extent 
of  nearly  two  inches. 

The  chief  defects  of  the  restorations  are  the  unpleasantly 
elongated  hands.1  Doubtful  also  is  the  attribute  of  the  left 
hand,  which  now  suggests  the  bow.  As  long  as  the  Stroganoff 
bronze  in  St.  Petersburg  was  believed  to  be  genuine,  scholars 
were  inclined  to  copy  from  it  the  aigis  also  for  the  Belvedere 
Apollo.  The  bronze,  however,  is  probably  a  modern  forgery, 
so  that  deductions  from  it  are  inconclusive.  Other  attributes 
have  been  suggested,  but  none  to  universal  satisfaction. 

The  comparison  between  this  statue  and  the  relief  from 
Pergamon,  Plate  2673,  is  striking.  The  Pergamon  Apollo  is 
nude,  save  for  the  bit  of  drapery  thrown  over  his  left  arm  in 
order  to  fill  an  empty  space.  The  arrangement  of  the  Belve- 
dere drapery  is  very  inappropriate,  for  to  wear  the  quiver  strap 
under  the  garment  is  unreasonable.  This  makes  it  probable 
that  the  statue  is  a  copy  not  of  another  statue  now  lost,  but  of 
a  painting 2  or  a  relief.  Many  of  the  gods  on  the  Pergamon 
frieze  were  borrowed  types ;  both  Apollos,  therefore,  may  be 
derived  from  the  same  prototype.  A  bit  of  drapery  is  very 
desirable  as  a  foil  to  the  nude.  In  a  painting  it  may  be  added 
to  a  figure  in  such  a  fashion  that  it  does  not  conflict  with  the 
quiver  strap.  In  a  figure  in  the  round  this  is  impossible. v 

These  observations  disprove  Collignon's  view  that  the  statue 
is  by  Leochares,  not  to  speak  of  the  character  of  the  statue, 
which  is  entirely  different  from  the  works  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  resemblance  of  the  Belvedere  Apollo  to  the  Ganymedes, 
Plate  233,  is  no  valid  argument ;  for  it  is  not  so  close  that  it 
could  not  be  accounted  for  in  a  multitude  3  of  ways,  nor  is  it 

1  For  the  reasons  which  induced  Montorsoli  to  carve  the  hands  too 
long,  see  E.  von  Mach,  p.  309.  2  For  instances  of  sculptors  copying 
the  works  of  painters,  see  the  discussion  of  the  Farnese  Bull,  Plate 
271.  3See  Helbig,  p.  106,  for  one  weighty  counter  argument. 


300  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

closer  than  that  to  the  Boy  in  Berlin,  Plate  274,  which  even 
Collignon,  no  doubt,  would  place  later  than  the  fourth  century. 
The  statue  is  discussed  in  detail  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3o8ff. 
The  important  points  are  : 

1.  Popular  over- valuation  of  the  statue. 

2.  Lack   of  dignity  of  Apollo,  as  compared  with  earlier 
works. 

3.  Physical  beauty  of  the  statue. 

4.  Skill  shown  in  representing  the  figure  walking,  and  de- 
vices by  which  this  illusion  has  been  attained. 

PLATE  273.  Praying  Boy.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Berlin.  Date 
and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  The  statue  belonged  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  to  Fouquet,  whose  son  sold  it  in  1717  to  Prince  Eugene 
for  18,000  francs,  from  whose  heirs  Prince  Lichtenstein  acquired  it,  only 
to  sell  it  for  17,500  marks  to  Frederic  the  Great.  In  1806  the  French 
carried  the  statue  to  France,  but  were  obliged  to  return  it  in  1812. 
Restorations :  both  arms,  except  fragments  immediately  below  the 
shoulders  indicating  their  direction;  the  second  toe  of  the  right  foot, 
and  the  second  and  third  toes  of  the  left  foot ;  also  small  pieces  in  the 
deltoid  and  the  eyeballs.  Berlin  Museum  Catalogue,  2 ;  Conze,  Jahr- 
buch  I,  1886,  pp.  iff.;  Robinson,  511;  Reinach  1,459,4.  Mau,  Rom. 
Mitth.,  XVII,  1902,  pp.  100-106,  interprets  the  statue  as  that  of  a  ball- 
player. His  theory  is  convincingly  refuted  by  Furtwangler,  Miinchencr 
Altgemeine  Zeitung,  November  29,  1902,  Beilage  No.  297.  Mau  also 
assigns  him  to  the  school  of  Lysippos,  a  view  which  was  expressed 
earlier,  Rom.  Mitth.,  XVI,  1901,  p.  391.  For  a  relief  of  a  praying  boy, 
manibus  supinis,  from  Nemea,  and  a  gem  with  the  same  motive,  see 
Arch.  Anzeiger,  1904,  p.  75;  for  a  coin,  Jahrbuch  I,  1886,  p.  217. 

From  the  gesture  of  this  boy  people  used  to  argue  as  to  the 
praying  attitude  of  the  ancients.  The  arms  are  modern  restor- 
ations, a  fact  which  has  led  many  writers  to  discredit  them  as 
wrong.  This  is,  however,  a  mistake,  for  enough  of  the  arms 
was  left  to  indicate  their  direction.  It  is  thus  merely  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  exact  bend  of  the  arms  in  the  elbows ;  the 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  301 

restoration  is  substantially  correct.  The  position  of  the  hands 
also  seems  to  be  established  by  other  ancient  monuments,  so 
that  one  may  continue  to  admire  the  statue  for  what  it  is,  a 
praying  boy. 

It  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  extant  bronzes,  perfect  in 
lines  from  every  point  of  view,  and  exquisite  in  execution. 
Recently  it  has  been  brought  into  connection  with  the  school 
of  Lysippos ;  and  it  must  be  conceded  that  its  affinity  to  the 
Apoxyomenos,  Plate  235,  and  the  Resting  Hermes,  Plate  237, 
is  marked.  There  is,  however,  an  element  of  reverence  for 
the  spiritual  in  this  statue,  which  does  not  accord  with  our 
knowledge  of  the  style  of  Lysippos,  while  it  might  have  been 
characteristic  of  one  of  his  followers. 

PLATE  274.  Boy  from  the  Rhine.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Berlin. 
Found  near  Xanthus  in  the  Rhine  in  1858,  when  the  water  was  unusu- 
ally low.  Berlin  Museum  Catalogue,  4;  Reinach  II,  488,  7. 

The  place  of  discovery  and  the  heavy x  bronze  of  the  statue 
point  to  a  Roman  workshop  of  the  empire.  The  face  also, 
which  is  very  broad,  is  unusual.  The  statue  itself,  however, 
is  undoubtedly  inspired  by  a  Greek  original,  and  deserves,  to 
be  admired  as  such.  Unfortunately  the  broken  right  arm 
spoils  the  rhythm  of  the  lines ;  but  with  this  exception  the 
boy  is  one  of  the  most  charming  creations  of  ancient  art,  a 
fact  which  has  been  of  late  almost  universally  overlooked. 

Just  what  the  artist  intended  to  convey  with  this  statue  is 
unknown.  Bonus  Eventus,  genius  of  good  luck,  is  one  of  the 
names 2  that  has  been  suggested ;  Novus  Annus,  the  spirit  of 
the  new  year,  is  another ;  and  Bacchus,  the  Roman  name  of 

'The  bronze  of  the  Praying  Boy,  Plate  273,  is  very  much  thinner 
and  more  delicate.  2  For  the  several  suggestions  of  names,  see  Berlin 
Museum  Catalogue,  pp.  5  and  6. 


302  GREEK:  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

the  Greek  Dionysos,  god  of  wine  and  good  fellowship,  is  a 
third.  All  these  suggestions  are  based  on  the  cheerfulness 
that  seems  to  emanate  from  the  gracious  advance  of  the  boy. 
Others  refer  more  specifically  to  his  attitude.  The  forward 
inclination  of  the  figure  is  considerable,  and  it  has,  therefore, 
been  supposed  by  Friedrichs  to  designate  a  charioteer.  The 
main  objection  to  this  view,  namely,  that  the  boy  is  nude,  is 
no  longer  valid,1  and  what  is  more,  his  attitude  reminds  one 
of  the  charioteer  in  Boston,  Plate  232.  At  best,  however, 
this  interpretation  is  only  one  of  several  possible  ones. 

In  closing,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  general  impression 
conveyed  by  this  statue  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  Belvedere 
Apollo,  in  so  far  as  one  judges  of  both  statues  not  by  the 
character  of  the  persons  portrayed,  but  by  the  physical  energy 
which  controls  their  bodies. 

PLATE  275.    Centaurs  by  Aristeas  and  Papias.    Of  dark  grey 

marble.  Capitoline  Museum,  Rome.  Discovered  in  Hadrian's  Villa, 
near  Tivoli,  in  1736;  placed  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  in  1765  by 
Pope  Clement  XIII.  Restorations  :  on  the  old  centaur  inscribed  with 
the  name  of  Aristeas,  the  left  eyebrow,  almost  all  the  fingers  of  the 
right  hand,  the  thumb  of  the  left  hand,  the  middle  of  the  right  foreleg, 
and  various  minor  details ;  on  the  young  centaur  inscribed  with  the 
name  Papias,  the  end  of  the  nose,  the  points  of  the  ears,  both  hands, 
part  of  the  left  foreleg,  the  right  hind  leg,  the  tail,  most  of  the  pine 
branches,  pieces  of  and  on  the  tree-trunk,  and  fragments  of  the  hair. 
Helbig,  with  full  bibliography,  512  ;  Reinach  I,  426,  2  and  4.  On  the 
replica  of  the  old  centaur  in  the  Louvre,  see  Frohner,  299;  F.  W., 
1421  ;  Reinach  140,  2. 

The  replica  of  the  older  centaur  in  the  Louvre  retains  frag- 
ments of  a  little  god  of  love  on  his  back.  Attachments  for 
such  Erotes  are  visible  on  the  backs  of  both  statues  in  the 

1  See  the  remarks  to  Plate  232. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  303 

Capitoline  Museum.  The  subject  is  therefore  Age  and  Youth, 
both  overcome  by  Love.  The  young  centaur  feels  in  his  ele- 
ment ;  the  old  one,  however,  takes  the  matter  more  seriously, 
his  arms  are  tied  on  his  back  and  with  marked  displeasure  he 
turns  toward  his  tormentor. 

His  head  and  human  body  remind  one  of  Laokoon,  Plate 
270,  even  more  so  in  the  Louvre  copy,  while  the  young  cen- 
taur suggests  satyr  statues  like  those  on  Plates  282ff.  It  is, 
therefore,  natural  to  date  the  original  of  this  group  in  the 
Hellenistic  age.  The  artists,  however,  whose  names  and  coun- 
try are  inscribed  on  the  base,  were  Aristeas  and  Papias  of 
Aphrodisias,  and  it  happens  that  we  do  not  know  of  a  flourish- 
ing school  of  sculpture  in  this  place  before  the  time  of 
Hadrian  in  the  second  century  of  our  era.  The  letters  of  the 
inscriptions  agree  with  this  date,  and  so  does  the  very  artificial 
style,  which  endeavors  to  treat  the  dark  grey  marble  as  if  it 
were  bronze.  If,  therefore,  Aristeas  and  Papias  carved  the  in- 
scriptions themselves,  they  are  perhaps  only  the  copyists  and 
not  the  original  sculptors  of  the  group.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  objection  to  assuming  that  later  copyists  carved  the 
inscriptions  and  that  Aristeas  and  Papias,  the  original  sculptors, 
lived  earlier,  in  the  Hellenistic  age.  That  no  mention  is  made 
of  a  school  of  sculpture  in  Aphrodisias  in  this  age  does  not 
argue  against  this  view.  Not  even  Pergamon  is  mentioned  in 
ancient  literature  as  a  center  of  art. 

PLATE  276.  Youthful  Dionysos.  Of  marble.  Terme,  Rome. 
Discovered  in  the  ruins  of  the  Villa  of  Hadrian  in  1881.  Restorations: 
the  front  of  the  nose,  a  piece  of  the  chin,  the  free-hanging  parts  of  the 
nebris  (skin),  the  thumb  and  most  of  the  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  the 
lower  part  of  the  left  leg,  the  tree-trunk  (except  the  part  adjoining  the 
thigh),  and  nearly  all  of  the  plinth.  Helbig,  1022,  with  full  bibliography; 
F.  W.,  520;  Robinson,  528;  Reinach  II,  117,  4.  First  publication, 
Michaelis,  Annali,  1883,  p.  1 36ff . 


304  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  unmistakable  resemblance  in  pose  between  this  Diony- 
sos T  and  the  statues  of  Polykleitos,  Plates  1138".,  has  led  to 
three  different  datings  of  this  figure.  Wolters 2  sees  in  it  the 
Roman  copy  of  a  work  of  the  fifth  century ;  Collignon  3  and 
Furtwangler4  agree  in  assigning  the  original  to  Euphranor,  an 
artist  of  the  fourth  century ;  while  Helbig s  is  inclined  to  be- 
lieve in  an  origin  of  the  type  in  the  Hellenistic  Period.  This 
last  view  is  most  probably  correct. 

While  the  points  of  resemblance  of  Dionysos  to  Polykleitan 
works  is  marked,  those  of  difference  from  them  are  not  less 
prominent,  the  most  striking  difference  being  the  sentimen- 
tality of  the  figure,  which  is  an  element  as  unknown  to  Poly- 
kleitos as  it  is  distinctly  intentional  here.  Artists  of  the  fourth 
century,  although  they  did  not  hesitate  to  borrow  earlier  types, 
were  nevertheless  too  creative  and  original  to  have  copied  an 
old  statue — pose,  dimensions,  everything  —  and  have  added 
of  their  own  nothing  but  a  refined  finish  and  element  of  senti- 
mentality. This  renders  it  very  improbable  that  the  originator 
of  the  Dionysos  type  was  Euphranor,  not  to  speak  of  the  fact 
that  the  entire  art  of  the  fourth  century,  in  spite  of  its  leaning 
toward  exterior  beauty,  was  one  of  decided  virility. 

In  the  Hellenistic  age  many  sculptors  were  less  original ; 
actual  copying  was  a  regular  practice,  and  sentiment,  carried 
to  its  extreme,  was  well  liked,  so  that  this  Dionysos  probably 
owes  its  origin  to  this  age,  unless  one  should  prefer  to  push 
its  date  down  even  further,  and  credit  it  to  the  Roman 
era.  Distrust  of  Roman  sculptors  is  characteristic  of  modern 
scholars  ;  and  anything  that  is  in  the  least  good  must  be  denied 
them.  It  is,  however,  undoubtedly  true  that  some  of  them 


1  The  skin  clearly  indicates  that  this  figure  is  meant  to  represent 
Dionysos.  2F.  W.,  520.  3  Collignon,  chapter  on  Euphranor.  4  Furt- 
wangler, Masterpieces,  pp.  3Soff.  5  Helbig  1022. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  305 

were  able  to  create  as  good  works  as  many  Hellenistic  Greek 
sculptors.  The  one  indication  in  the  Dionysos  that  would 
seem  to  point  in  their  direction  is  the  treatment  of  the  hair, 
which  is  parted  in  the  middle.  This  is  unheard  J  of  in  the 
fifth  and  the  fourth  centuries  before  Christ,  it  is  unusual  in  the 
Hellenistic  age,  and  very  common  in  Roman  times.  The 
parted  hair  at  once  singles  the  statue  out  from  other  repre- 
sentations of  Dionysos,  and  conveys  an  impression  of  reality 
such  as  it  is  difficult  to  equal  even  in  the  Hellenistic  age  with 
its  love  for  realism. 

After  all  these  discussions  of  date  and  origin,  the  student 
gladly  turns  again  to  the  statue  itself.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
endearing  creations  of  ancient  art,  and  one's  estimate  of 
Hadrian  grows  when  one  contemplates  that  he  took  sufficient 
pleasure  in  this  Dionysos  to  add  it  to  the  many  beautiful  works 
with  which  he  adorned  his  villa. 

PLATE  277.  Menelaos  and  PatroklOS.  Group  of  marble.  Loggia 
dei  Lanzi,  Florence.  Discovered  in  Rome,  exact  date  unknown,  but 
earlier  than  1570,  when  Duke  Cosimo  I  bought  it.  Restorations:  on 
Menelaos,  the  head,  neck  and  upper  part  of  the  body,  the  right  arm, 
except  the  hand,  the  left  arm,  parts  of  the  sword,  and  a  few  pieces  of 
the  drapery;  on  the  dead  Patroklos,  both  arms,  the  nose,  the  upper  lip, 
and  parts  of  the  cheeks.  F.  W.,  1397  and  1398  ;  Amelung,  5 ;  Reinach  I, 
498,  2.  For  a  list  of  replicas  see  F.  W.,  p.  506,  and  Helbig,  240. 

TEXT  ILLUSTRATION  42.  So-called  Pasquino.  Fragment  of 
the  group  of  which  Plate  277  reproduces  a  copy.  Discovered  in  Rome 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  near  the  house  owned  by  a  shoemaker  named 
Pasquino.  Pasquino  was  well  known  for  his  attacks,  full  of  satire,  on 
popes  and  cardinals.  After  his  death  his  name  went  to  the  ancient 
fragment,  which  had  been  erected  where  it  was  found  and  on  which 
scurrilous  verses,  of  the  kind  the  shoemaker  used  to  write,  were  pasted. 

1  If  instances  of  it  should  be  found,  they  would  only  be  the  excep- 
tions that  prove  the  rule. 


306  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  colossal  size  of  these  figures  suggests  ancient  heroes, 
and  it  happens  that  an  incident  related  in  Homer  tallies  with 
the  representation  of  the  group.  Patroklos  has  fallen,  killed 
with  two  wounds,  one  in  his  back  and  the  other  under  his  left 
breast,  just  as  indicated  in  the  statue.  Then  Menelaos  runs 
up  to  save  the  body  of  his  friend,  but  on  his  way  to  the  ships 
he  is  hard  pressed  and  obliged  to  put  Patroklos  down,  to  draw 
his  sword  and  defend  himself.  This  is  the  moment  here 
represented.  The  head  of  the  Florentine  statue  is  wrongly 
restored ;  like  the  Pasquino,  the  hero  ought  to  look  up  and 
back  toward  the  enemy.  He  is  no  longer  carrying  Patroklos, 
but  ready  to  deposit  him  gently  on  the  ground.  This  care, 
bestowed  even  on  the  dead  body  of  his  friend  and  at  a  time 
when  he  himself  is  hard  pressed,  is  one  of  the  most  impressive 
touches  of  the  composition.  It  is  enhanced  by  the  contrast 
that  exists  between  the  strong,  active  body  of  Menelaos  and 
the  youthful  beauty  of  the  dead  Patroklos.  Greek  art  is  full  of 
such  incidents  of  deep  human  feeling.  They  are  met  with  in 
Phigaleia,  but  most  especially  on  the  Maussolleion  frieze  and 
in  the  Niobe  group. 

Because  of  the  singular  correspondence  of  sentiment  be- 
tween this  group  and  some  of  the  Niobids,1  a  few  scholars 
have  been  tempted  to  assign  Menelaos  and  Patroklos  to  the 
fourth  century,  in  substantiation  of  which  view  they  might  also 
have  quoted  the  garment  of  Menelaos,  which  repeats  the  mo- 
tive of  the  Maussolleion  Amazon,  Plate  22ga. 

There  is,  however,  another  close  analogy,  and  that  is  with 
the  head  of  Laokoon,  Plate  484,  "  both  in  the  shape  of  the 
skull  and  in  the  treatment  of  the  skin  and  hair,"  2  which  would 
seem  to  date  the  Florentine  group  in  the  Hellenistic  age. 
Wolters  comes  to  the  same  conclusion,  irrespective  of  a  re- 

1  See  Plate  2243..     2Helbig,  pp.  i6of. 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  307 

semblance  to  the  Laokoon,  and  says,  "  During  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century  we  know  of  no  instance  of  a  group  similarly 
thoughtful  in  artistic  arrangement ;  we  feel,  therefore,  inclined 
to  assign  Menelaos  and  Patroklos  to  the  first  part  of  the  third 
century." 

If  Wolters'  conclusion  is  correct,  as  it  no  doubt  is,  it  adds 
another  argument  to  many  others  against  the  erroneous  theory 
that  the  art  of  the  entire  Hellenistic  age  was  one  of  decadence. 

PLATE  278.  The  Nile.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Discovered 
during  the  papacy  of  Leo  X  (1513-1522)  near  the  church  S.  Maria 
sopra  Minerva  in  Rome.  Restorations,  by  Gaspare  Sibilla  :  the  fingers 
of  the  right  hand,  the  ears  of  corn,  except  the  stumps  on  the  left  calf, 
the  toes ;  also  the  upper  part  of  nearly  all  the  children  and  in  some 
cases  still  more.  Helbig,  47;  F.  W.,  1543;  Reinach  I,  431,  5.  For 
the  inferior  companion  piece  to  the  Nile,  the  Tiber,  found  in  1512  in 
the  same  locality,  see  Frohner,  449;  Reinach  I,  171,  5;  and  for  the 
reliefs  on  the  base,  Reinach  I,  68.  For  the  river  gods  on  the  upper 
strip  see  the  representation  of  Orontes,  Plate  256. 

That  this  unmistakable  river  god  is  intended  to  be  the  Nile 
is  proved  by  the  presence  of  the  Sphinx,  the  symbol  of  Egypt, 
by  the  sixteen  little  figures,  typifying  the  sixteen  cubits  which 
the  river  rises  at  its  maximum  inundation,1  by  the  crocodile 
near  his  feet,  by  the  ichneumon  near  his  knee,  and  by  the  re- 
liefs on  three  sides  of  the  base  with  incidents  from  the  life  near 
the  banks  of  the  Nile.  The  fertility  of  Egypt,  moreover,  is 
indicated  by  the  cornucopia  and  the  ears  of  corn. 

1  The  Nile,  with  never  failing  regularity,  begins  to  rise  slowly  from 
the  fifteenth  to  the  twentieth  of  July,  then  rapidly  until  the  fifteenth  of 
September.  Then  there  is  a  standstill  for  two  weeks,  and  after  that  a 
renewed  rise,  so  that  the  river  reaches  its  maximum  at  mid-October. 
Then  the  flood  sinks  to  its  lowest  mark,  so  that  the  cultivation  of  the 
ground  may  begin  about  December. 


308  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  place  where  the  statue  was  found  has  yielded  numerous 
monuments  which  relate  to  Egypt,  so  that  a  temple  of  Isis  is 
assumed  to  have  stood  there.  The  companion  piece  to  this 
river  god,  the  Tiber,  now  in  the  Louvre,  may  have  been  in- 
tended to  suggest  the  new  home  of  the  goddess,  as  the  Nile 
typified  her  old  place  of  worship. 

The  workmanship  of  the  statue  assigns  this  particular  copy 
to  Roman  times,  when  the  Tiber  also  was  made.  The  origin 
of  the  Nile,  however,  is  to  be  sought  for  at  an  earlier  date, 
probably  in  Alexandria  in  the  Hellenistic  age.  Allegory  and 
peasant  life  were  favorite  subjects  of  the  Alexandrians,  whose 
tendencies  are  better  known  to  us  from  literature  than  from 
extant  monuments. 

One  quality  that  was  noted  on  the  Pergamon  Altar,  Plates 
265ff.,  and  again  in  the  Farnese  Bull,  Plate  271,  is  prominent 
also  in  the  Nile.  This  quality  refers  to  the  desire  of  the  artist 
to  round  out  his  entire  composition  even  at  the  cost  of  mo- 
mentary confusion  of  outlines,  and  to  his  skill  in  bringing  order 
out  of  the  seeming  chaos. 

The  sixteen  little  figures  have,  in  this  instance,  supplied  the 
sculptor  with  the  means  of  creating  a  characteristic  work  along 
these  lines.  Their  distribution  is  very  ingenious.  They  are 
combined  in  pleasing  groups  wherever  the  masses  of  the 
human  body  tended  to  leave  an  empty  space  or  to  taper  down 
to  unsatisfactory  thinness,  as  below  both  arms  and  near  the 
feet. 

The  reliefs,  filled  with  incidents  taken  from  the  daily  life  of 
the  Egyptians,  are  wisely  reserved  for  the  back  and  the  two 
sides  of  the  base.  In  front,  they  would  have  detracted  from 
the  interest  in  the  god  himself. 

PLATE  279.  Poseidon  Of  MelOS.  Colossal  statue  of  marble. 
National  Museum,  Athens.  Discovered  in  the  island  of  Melos  in  1878, 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  309 

and  acquired  for  the  Museum  in  Athens  for  27,000  drachma!.1  Res- 
torations :  the  nose,  the  left  side  of  the  back  of  the  head,  which  was 
carved  separately,  small  fragments  of  the  drapery  and  the  trident. 
Kavvadias  Catalogue,  235 ;  Gaz.  des  Beaux  Arts,  1890, 1,  p.  339 ;  B.  C.  Jf.t 
XIII,  Plate  3;  Reinach  I,  28,  i. 

At  first  sight,  this  colossal  statue  is  very  imposing.    The  god 
is  revealed  in  his  might.     He,  the  master  of  the  ocean,  is ' 
aroused,  and  at  a  word  from  him  the  billows  of  the  sea  will 
pile  up  and  bring  destruction  to  whomsoever  he  hates. 

His  drapery  is  arranged  like  that  of  the  Olympian  Zeus  by 
Pheidias,  so  that  he  seems  to  have  just  risen  from  his  throne. 
The  moment  of  rest  is  represented,  the  storm  is  suggested,  — 
but  not  only  the  storm ;  for  the  unruffled  drapery,  which  is 
appropriate  to  a  seated  figure  but  impossible  for  one  in  action, 
implies  that  excitement  may  pass  and  that  the  god  may  return 
once  more  to  the  peaceful  posture  of  the  Olympian  Zeus. 

The  detailed  finish  of  the  statue  is  mediocre,  for  the  artist 
has  bestowed  all  his  attention  upon  its  general  appearance. 
This  presupposes,  on  his  part,  an  estimate  of  the  quality  of  his 
spectators,  which  is  by  no  means  favorable  to  them,  and  ap- 
pears to  have  been  impossible  before  the  heterogeneous  ele- 
ment of  art  lovers  had  made  its  appearance  in  the  Hellenistic 
age. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  statue  with  the  Poseidon  in 
the  Lateran,  Plate  239.  Here  only  the  dolphin  explains  the 
nature  of  the  god,  who,  but  for  this  animal  of  the  sea,  might 
have  been  a  Zeus  or  any  other  of  the  great  gods.  There  the 
entire  figure  is  characterized  as  what  it  is,  Poseidon.  The 
superiority  of  the  Lateran  type  would  be  even  more  apparent 
if  it  were  extant  in  a  better  copy,  but,  even  so,  the  serious 

1  A  drachme  is  officially  the  equivalent  of  a  franc.  Its  value,  how- 
ever, fluctuates  and  rarely  even  approaches  that  of  a  franc. 


310  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

student   has  no  difficulty  in  assigning  to  both  statues   their 
proper  places. 

PLATE  280.  Satyr,  "Barberinl  Faun."  Of  marble.  Glypto- 
thek,  Munich.  Found  during  the  repairs  of  the  Castle  of  S.  Angelo 
(the  mausoleum  of  Hadrian)  in  Rome,  1624—1641.  The  statue  was 
immediately  placed  in  the  Palazzo  Barberini,  where  it  remained  until 
1799,  when  it  was  bought  for  Munich  in  1813,  but  the  permission  to 
remove  it  from  Rome  was  not  granted  until  1820.  The  first  publica- 
tion of  the  statue  in  1642  showed  it  restored  (picture,  Reinach  I,  409, 
3,  in  the  reverse),  but  probably  only  on  paper.  The  present  restora- 
tions were  made  by  the  sculptor  Pacetti,  who  had  bought  the  statue  in 
1799.  He  seems  to  have  followed  the  plaster  restorations  made  by 
Bernini  (1598-1680),  with  one  important  exception.  He  bent  the  right 
leg  more  sharply  in  the  knee,  supporting  the  foot  on  a  piece  of  rock 
which  he  inserted  for  this  purpose.  The  original  foot  probably  rested 
on  the  spot  which  now  shows  dark  on  the  illustration  below  the  foot. 
Restorations :  the  entire  right  leg  and  fragments  of  the  left  leg,  the  left 
lower  arm,  the  right  elbow,  the  fingers  of  the  right  hand  and  the  tip  of 
the  nose,  also  the  back  part  of  the  rock.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  218; 
F.  W.,  1401  ;  Robinson,  657  ;  Reinach  I,  402,  2  and  I,  409,  3.  For  a 
suggested  change  of  position,  tilting  the  figure  further  back,  see  Habich, 
Jahrbuch  XVII,  1902,  pp.  3iff.  (review,  A.  J.  A.,  VI,  1902,  pp.  467), 
and  Bulle,  Jahrbuch  XVI,  1901,  pp.  iff.,  with  several  illustrations.  But 
see  the  conclusive  rejoinder  of  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  p.  203. 

Fresh  from  the  Bacchic  revels  this  satyr  is  overcome  with 
sleep  before  he  has  found  a  comfortable  position.  To  tilt  him 
back  in  the  endeavor  to  have  him  seem  to  rest  more  easily,  as 
Bulle  and  Habich  suggest,  is  depriving  him  of  one  of  his  best 
touches  of  realism,  while  it  is  also  contradicted  by  the  now 
vertical,  loose  hanging  ends  of  the  panther  .skin  between  his 
legs. 

The  type  of  face  of  this  statue  is  entirely  new,  and  so  is  its 
general  conception.  In  the  age  of  Praxiteles,  satyrs  were 
reproduced  different  from  human  beings,  but  they  were  noble 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  311 

products  of  the  artist's  imagination  :  see  the  "  Marble  Faun," 
Plate  195.  This  satyr  differs  from  human  beings,  to  be  sure, 
but  only  because  he  is  the  incarnation  of  those  base  elements 
which  in  man  rarely  appear  unallied  with  better  impulses. 
This  at  once  removes  the  statue  from  the  cycle  of  the  fourth 
century  artists.  Its  excellent  workmanship  and  its  simplicity 
of  design  seem  to  indicate  that  it  cannot  be  of  a  very  late  date. 
The  realism  of  the  statue  is  pronounced,  as  "  appears '  first 
of  all  in  the  posture  of  the  figure  and  is  followed  even  more 
carefully  in  the  sensual,  half-savage  face.  The  expression  of 
the  open  mouth  is  strongly  suggestive  of  sonorous  breathing." 

PLATE  281.  Sleeping  Satyr.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples.  Dis- 
covered in  Herculaneum  during  the  early  excavations.  Museo  Bor- 
bonico,  Vol.  X,  Plate  61  ;  Reinach  I,  409,  4. 

This  statue  offers  interesting  points  of  comparison 2  with  the 
preceding.  It  is  obviously  not  an  original,  and  is  in  need  of  a 
supporting  background.  The  superiority  of  an  original  mas- 
terpiece like  the  "  Barberini  Faun,"  Plate  280,  is  nowhere 
more  apparent  than  when  it  is  compared  with  the  less  thought- 
ful work  of  a  copyist. 

PLATE  282a.  Dancing  Satyr.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples. 
Found  in  1830  in  the  ruins  of  a  house  in  Pompeii,  which  house  re- 
ceived from  it  the  name  Casa  del  Fauno.3  F.  \V.,  1504  ;  Mau-Kelsey 
pp.  288ff.,  and  p.  451,  fig.  258  ;  Reinach  I,  408,  I. 

PLATE  282b.  Dancing  Satyr.  Of  marble.  Terme,  Rome,  for- 
merly in  the  Villa  Borghese.  Found  in  1824  on  Monte  Calvo,  near 
Rieti,  in  the  Sabine  District.  Restorations,  probably  by  Thorwaldsen: 
both  arms  and  cymbals,  the  lower  part  of  the  right  leg  except  the  front 

'Quoted  from  Robinson,  657.  2 Another  interesting  comparison 
may  be  made  between  it  and  the  Reposing  Hermes  in  Naples,  Plate 
237.  3  The  Latin  faunus  is  used  synonymously  with  the  Greek  satyr. 


312  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  the  foot,  the  tail,  the  lower  part  of  the  stump  with  the  adjacent  parts 
of  the  skin,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  plinth.  Helbig,  944 ;  F.  W., 
1427  ;  Reinach  II,  50,  8. 

PLATE  283.  Satyr  Playing  Scabellum.1  Of  marble.  Uffizi,  Flor- 
ence. Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  It  belonged  to  the 
collections  of  the  Medici  family  as  early  as  1600.  Restorations:  the 
head,  almost  entire;  both  arms;  the  toes  of  the  right  foot;  several 
pieces  of  the  legs,  and  other  pieces  near  the  left  hip.  Amelung,  65 ; 
Robinson,  536 ;  Reinach  I,  405,  I  and  3.  For  a  scabellum  played  by 
a  flute  player,  see  the  relief  of  a  sarcophagus,  Baumeister,  p.  442,  fig. 
492. 

These  three  statues  of  satyrs  are  samples  of  the  large  num- 
ber of  similar  representations  dating  from  the  Hellenistic 
Period,  when  the  tumultuous  hilarity  of  these  creatures  of 
fancy  pleased  the  popular  taste  better  than  the  fine  conception 
of  the  "  Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195,  or  the  ignoble  character  of 
the  "  Barberini  Faun,"  Plate  280. 

The  gayety  of  the  bronze  satyr  from  Pompeii,  Plate  282%, 
is  catching ;  it  "  is 2  instinct  with  rhythmic  motion.  Every 
muscle  of  the  satyr's  sinewy  frame  is  in  tension  as  he  moves 
forward  in  the  dance,  snapping  his  fingers  to  keep  time ;  the 
pose  is  a  marvel  of  skill."  There  is  no  tree-trunk  to  impair 
one's  pleasure,  and  altogether  this  satyr  is  one  of  the  best 
bronzes  in  Naples. 

The  next  satyr,  Plate  2 Sab,  is  a  marble  copy,  tied  to  a 
supporting  block  of  marble  and  unable  therefore  to  convey 
the  impression  of  motion  in  spite  of  the  suggestive  twist  of  his 
body.  The  arms  are  restored,  but  they  continue  well  the 
rhythm  of  the  figure.  Similar  arms  are  added  to  the  Marsyas 
after  Myron,  Plate  65 a,  where  they  are  out  of  place.  The 

1  Scabellum  is  the  name    of  the  instrument  on  which  the  satyr  is 
playing  with  his  foot.     It  emitted  sounds  like  those  of  castanets. 

2  Quoted  from  Mau-Kelsey,  p.  451. 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  313 

Marsyas  is  designed  for  a  plane  of  two  dimensions ;  the 
Borghese  Satyr  implies  an  accurate  conception  of  the  require- 
ments of  space,  that  is,  of  three  dimensions. 

Like  the  Naples  satyr  beating  time  with  his  fingers,  he  in 
the  Uffizi  must  give  vent  to  the  rhythm  which  he  feels.  He 
uses  for  this  purpose  the  scabellum,  and  his  entire  body  is 
bent  to  enforce  the  time  which  he  is  beating  out  with  the  shrill 
instrument  under  his  foot.  A  modern  artist  would,  perhaps, 
have  represented  him  engaged  in  a  clog-dance. 

The  accuracy  of  the  restored  arms  is  doubtful.  Amelung 
suggests  the  satyr  ought  to  be  playing  a  double  flute  like  the 
girl  on  the  Sarcophagus  relief  in  Baumeister,  fig.  492.  This 
seems,  however,  inappropriate ;  for  the  double  flute  is  a  digni- 
fied instrument,  while  the  attitude  of  the  satyr  is  marked  by  its 
careless  abandon  to  one  controlling  idea —  rhythm. 

PLATE  284.  Spinario.  Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London. 
Found  in  Rome  in  1874.  Restorations  :  a  few  pieces  in  the  back,  which 
is  also  mended  with  plaster.  British  Museum  Catalogue,  1755;  Over- 
beck  II,  183!?.  ;  Reinach  II,  144,  2. 

This  statue  has  been,  in  part,  discussed  in  connection  with 
the  Spinario  in  Rome,  Plate  72,  which  Overbeck  believed  was 
a  copy  of  the  same  original.  It  was,  however,  seen  that  his 
view  was  untenable.  The  Roman  Spinario  belongs  to  the 
Transitional  Period  of  Greek  sculpture,  while  the  London 
statue,  as  all  agree,  is  a  work  of  the  Hellenistic  age.  Its 
individuality,  far  removed  from  the  typical,  which  is  repre- 
sented in  the  other  statue,  and  its  submission  to  the  require- 
ments of  space  —  it  is  a  statue  in  the  round  in  the  best  sense 
of  the  word  —  date  it  with  absolute  certainty. 

More  difficult  is  it  to  find  a  definite  artist  to  whom  to  attri- 
bute it.  Boethos  has  been  suggested  by  Overbeck,  but  un- 
fortunately on  insufficient  grounds.  Overbeck  makes  his  case 


314  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

very  plausible,  but  the  data  on  which  he  bases  it  are  so  few 
that  the  real  conclusion  must  be  not  the  statue  is  by  Boethos, 
but  it  may  be  by  Boethos,  which  is  a  very  different  thing. 

Boethos  appeared  as  the  maker  of  the  Boy  with  the  Goose, 
Plate  254,  and  is  mentioned  by  Pausanias  '  as  the  sculptor  of 
a  seated  nude  boy  in  the  temple  of  Hera  in  Olympia.  In  this 
statue  Overbeck  sees  the  original  of  the  Spinario.  In  the 
manuscript  the  boy  is  designated  as  gilded  (epichrysori)  which 
seems  to  be  superfluous,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Pausanias 
rarely  vouchsafes  such  information.  It  has,  therefore,  been 
suggested  that  the  passage  ought  to  read  epikyrton,  which 
would  mean  "  in  a  stooping  posture."  But  even  if  this  emen- 
dation is  accepted  —  and  on  text-critical  grounds  there  is  no 
objection  to  it  —  it  still  seems  a  little  rash  to  claim  Boethos 
as  the  maker  of  the  Spinario  type  on  the  sole  grounds  that  his 
statues  of  boys  were  famous,2  and  that  he  also  made  a  statue 
of  a  seated  boy  in  a  stooping  attitude. 

PLATE  285.  Torso  Of  a  Triton.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Found,  date  not  published,  on  the  farm  of  S.  Angelo  at  Tivoli. 
Restorations  :  the  tip  of  the  nose,  parts  of  the  ears  and  hair,  and  almost 
the  entire  lower  part  of  the  body.  Helbig,  187  ;  Reinach  I,  429,  3. 

Tritons  were  the  mermen  of  ancient  mythology,  and  are 
often  represented  together  with  the  Nereids.  Their  bodies 
ended  in  fishes,  or,  in  one  variety  called  sea-centaurs,  in 
horses.  Often,  however,  they  were  seen  emerging  from  the 
sea,  in  which  case  the  shape  of  their  lower  extremities  was  left 
to  the  imagination.  Creatures  of  fancy,  at  all  times,  they  were 
represented  with  the  characteristic  signs  of  their  terrestrial 
cousins,  the  satyrs.  Their  ears  are  pointed,  and  a  skin 

1  Pausanias  V,  17,4,  or  S.  Q.,  1596.  2  There  are  several  references 
to  the  children  by  Boethos  in  ancient  literature. 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  315 

resembling  the  nebris,  or  panther  skin,  is  slung  about  their 
shoulders.  This  was  the  more  natural,  as  the  myth  connected 
the  tritons  also  with  the  cult  of  Dionysos. 

The  first  great  sculptor  to  select  tritons  as  subjects  worthy 
of  serious  treatment  was  Skopas.  The  melancholy  expression 
which  is  characteristic  of  all  sea-deities,  and  indeed  also  of 
human  beings  dwelling  near  the  sea,  may  have  appealed  to 
him.  The  element  of  brooding  sadness  is  very  strong  in  the 
Vatican  triton,  whose  head,  moreover,  offers  several  points  of 
resemblance  to  the  head  of  Niobe,  Plate  220,  so  that  some 
scholars  have  been  inclined  to  see  in  him  Skopadean  influ- 
ences. Skopas,  however,  was  a  man  of  more  moderation  and 
greater  reserve  than  is  shown  in  this  head.  The  originator 
of  this  type  must,  therefore,  be  sought  among  his  successors, 
probably  in  the  Hellenistic  age. 

PLATE  286.  Borghese  Warrior.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Found  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  in  the  ruins  of  the  old  city  of 
Antium ;  at  first  in  the  possession  of  the  Borghese  family,  and  since 
1808  in  the  Louvre.  Restorations:  the  right  arm  and  the  right  ear. 
F.  W.,  1425;  Robinson,  66 1 ;  Reinach  I,  154,  1-4. 

This  statue  is  designed  and  posed  with  one  definite  view 
in  mind,  to  show  the  skill  of  the  artist  and  his  knowledge 
of  anatomy.  Half  on  the  defensive  —  the  shield  J  is  held  up, 
half  ready  to  deal  a  decisive  blow  —  the  right  leg  and  arm 
are  drawn  back,  the  body  of  the  warrior  is  shown  at  the 
moment  of  its  greatest  tension,  an  excellent  model  for  students 
in  art  classes.  All  indications  of  actual  warriors,  such  as 
helmet  and  armour,  are  omitted,  and  the  face  is  that  of  a  man 
of  the  lower  classes,  and  not  suggestive  of  a  hero.  The 
speculations,  therefore,  as  to  the  foe  whom  this  warrior  was 

1  Of  bronze,  once  attached  to  the  shield-handle  on  the  arm. 


316  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

fighting,  are  futile.  Any  definite  incident  portrayed  would 
have  made  an  appeal  to  the  imagination  of  the  spectators. 
The  sculptor,  however,  desired  to  appeal  only  to  their  vision. 

When  this  is  kept  in  mind,  the  statue  is  not  so  disappointing 
as  it  appears  when  one  approaches  it  with  higher  expectations. 
It  is,  moreover,  a  statue  distinctly  in  the  round,  and  loses  more 
than  most  Greek  statues  when  it  is  projected  on  a  plane  of 
two  dimensions,  as  is  the  case  in  a  photograph. 

An  inscription  on  the  support  of  the  figure  contains  the 
name  of  the  sculptor,  Agasias,  son  of  Dositheos  of  Ephesos. 
The  character  of  the  letters  assigns  the  statue  to  the  first  cen- 
tury before  Christ.  This  is  probably  also  the  date  of  the  con- 
ception of  the  statue ;  for  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  earlier 
artists  would  have  been  willing  to  use  their  superior  skill  for  the 
execution  of  a  subject  which  conveyed  absolutely  nothing  be- 
yond what  was  actually  seen. 

PLATE  287.  Warrior  from  Delos,  probably  a  Gaul.  Of  marble. 
National  Museum,  Athens.  Found  in  Delos  in  1882  during  the  ex- 
cavations of  the  French  School  at  Athens.  Reinach,  B.  C.  H.,  1884, 
p.  178,  and  1889,  p.  103;  Kavvadias,  Catalogue,  247;  Robinson,  66ia; 
Reinach  II,  195,  5 ;  Wolters,  Athen.  Mitth.,  1890,  pp.  i88ff.  The  now 
lost  upper  part  of  the  figure  was  carved  of  a  separate  piece  and  added 
to  the  trunk. 

Near  this  statue  a  base  was  found  containing  the  name  of 
Agasias,  son  of  Menophilos,  of  Ephesos.  This  base  Reinach 
at  first  believed  belonged  to  the  statue ;  and  since  another 
Agasias  of  Ephesos,  the  son  of  Dositheos,  was  the  maker  of 
the  Borghese  Warrior,  Plate  286,  he  reasoned  that  there  might 
be  some  connection  between  the  two  statues,  which  in  pose, 
indeed,  are  not  unlike  each  other.  Wolters,  however,  proved 
convincingly  that  the  base  does  not  belong  to  the  statue,  but 
that  on  the  other  hand  an  inscription  containing  five  distichs 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  317 

does.  This  inscription  celebrates  the  victory  of  Philetairos, 
brother  of  Eumenes  II,1  over  the  Gauls,  and  contains  the 
name  of  the  artist  Nikeratos.  The  statue,  therefore,  probably 
represents  a  Gaul.  So  conclusive  are  Welters'  arguments 
that  Reinach  himself  has  accepted  them.2  He  publishes  the 
statue  as  that  of  a  Gaul  in  his  Repertoire  II,  199,  5. 

The  warrior  from  Delos,  as  an  observation  from  the  original 
proves,  is  in  technique  and  style  not  unlike  the  statues  of  the 
school  of  Pergamon,  while  it  has  only  the  pose  in  common 
with  the  Borghese  warrior.  Near  it  were  found  fragments  of 
a  horseman,  suggesting  that  it  was  against  him  the  warrior  was 
defending  himself.  He  has  sunk  on  his  right  knee  and  is 
entirely  on  the  defensive.  He  is  thus  much  lower  than  the 
Borghese  statue  and  might  well  have  formed  part  of  a  group. 

In  spite  of  these  differences  there  is  nevertheless  an  element 
of  similarity  between  the  two  statues,  which  calls  for  an  ex- 
planation. The  Agasias  inscription  from  Delos  undoubtedly 
supplies  it.  It  proves  that  sculptors  from  Ephesos  worked  in 
Delos,  and  suggests  that  also  the  other  Agasias,  son  of  Dosi- 
theos,  might  have  been  familiar  with  the  Delian  warrior. 
When  he,  therefore,  looked  for  a  subject  in  which  to  display 
his  skill,  that  statue  seemed  to  him  to  supply  it.  He  adapted 
it  and,  disregarding  its  connection  with  a  group,  made  it  serve 
him  as  a  means  by  which  to  show  his  knowledge  of  technique 
and  of  anatomy. 

PLATE  288.  The  Wrestlers.  Of  marble.  Uffizi  Gallery,  Flor- 
ence. Found  in  1583  near  the  Lateran  in  Rome,  together  with  the 
Niobe  group,  Plates  22off.  Restorations:  both  heads,  which  are 

1  The  great  altar  of  Pergamon  was  built  under  Eumenes  II,  197-156 
B.  C.  2  Robinson  based  his  account  on  Reinach's  first  erroneous  pub- 
lication. His  references  to  the  similarity  of  the  skin  of  both  statues 
are  particularly  open  to  objections.  Compare  Gardner,  p.  477. 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

antique1  but  do  not  belong  to  the  statues;  on  the  youth  on  top,  both 
arms  ;  on  the  other  youth,  the  lower  right  arm,  the  forefinger  of  the 
left  hand  ;  also  the  base.  Amelung,  66;  F.  W.,  1426;  Robinson,  531  ; 
Reinach  I,  523,  I. 

PLATE  289.  The  Wrestlers.  Of  bronze.  Museum,  Naples. 
Discovered  in  Herculaneum  in  1754.  Antichita  Ercolano,  Vol.  IV, 
Plates  LVIII  and  LIX  ;  Museum  Inventory,  Nos.  5626  and  5627  ; 
Reinach  II,  541,  2. 

These  two  groups  —  for  the  two  figures  in  the  Naples  Mu- 
seum are  supplementary  and  form  a  group  —  represent  differ- 
ent moments  of  the  sport  of  wrestling.  The  Naples  figures 
have  been  interpreted  in  various  ways,  but  the  majority  of 
scholars  seem  to  agree  that  they  are  athletes  ready  to  start  a 
wrestling  match.  Their  whole  attitude  implies  not  only  eager- 
ness to  make  a  forward  move,  but  also  readiness  to  meet  an 
attack.  This  is  best  seen  in  the  firmly  planted  feet  of  the  ad- 
vanced legs.  If  the  youths  were  runners,  as  some  have  be- 
lieved, they  would  be  leaning  forward  more.  As  they  stand, 
they  cannot  start  to  run  without  losing  time  by  raising  the  heels 
of  the  forward  feet. 

The  youths  in  Florence  have  nearly  finished  their  match. 
The  under  one  is  held  in  such  firm  embrace  that  he  will  have 
to  acknowledge  his  defeat  soon.  The  other,  however,  is  taking 
no  chances,  and  has  raised  his  right  hand  so  that  he  may 
quickly  seize  upon  any  member  of  his  adversary  that  the  latter 
may  succeed  in  freeing. 

The  arrangement  of  this  group  is  extremely  skilful.  It  is 
built  up,  a  pleasant  mass,  and  its  lines,  although  at  first  per- 
plexing, are  far  from  being  confused.  This  indicates  a  kind 
of  design  that  is  akin  to  the  sculptures  from  Pergamon,  Plates 
and  other2  Hellenistic  works. 


1  Both  heads  probably  are  replicas  of  the  head  of  one  of  the  Niobids. 
On  both  the  nose  is  restored.     2  Compare  Plates  271  and  277. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  319 

The  Naples  figures  are  dated  in  the  Hellenistic  age  with 
less  certainty.  Individually  they  resemble  the  reposing  Hermes, 
Plate  237,  which  probably  belongs  to  the  cycle  of  Lysippos  in 
the  fourth  century  before  Christ. 

PLATE  290.  Youth  from  Antikythera.  Of  bronze.  National 
Museum,  Athens.  Discovered  on  the  bottom  of  the  sea  near  Anti- 
kythera,  off  Cape  Malea  in  1900.  The  statue  is  copiously  restored  and 
has  been  entirely  covered  with  putty,  so  that  it  is  far  from  offering  an 
appearance  at  all  comparable  to  the  original.  The  head,  parts  of  the 
upper  body  and  the  right  arm  are  the  most  important  ancient  parts. 
Ephemeris,  1902,  pp.  I49ff. ;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  325ff. ;  for  copious 
bibliography  see  A.J.  A.,  V,  1901,  p.  465  and  VII,  1903,  pp.  464^ 

Never  since  the  reawakening  of  serious  interest  in  ancient 
art  early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  has  a  work  of  Greek  work- 
manship received  such  unworthy  treatment  as  this  youth  from 
Antikythera.  "  The  '  entire  statue  has  been  covered  with  a 
thick  layer  of  paste  to  conceal  the  rivets,  seams  and  joints  and 
has  been  artificially  colored  to  look  like  a  genuine  bronze 
statue.  The  surface  modelling  of  the  statue  is,  therefore,  not 
Greek  but  modern ;  not  by  Skopas  or  by  Lysippos,  as  has 
been  said,  but  by  M.  Andre,  whose  office  is  that  of  '  restorer 
of  works  of  art '  in  Paris."  This  makes  it  extremely  difficult 
to  speak  authoritatively  of  the  statue.  M.  Andre's  skill  of 
course,  made  it  possible  for  him  to  give  the  statue  an  appear- 
ance, by  means  of  its  surface  finish,  of  any  desired  age,  or  of  a 
mixture  of  the  characteristics  of  several  ages. 

This  alone  explains  the  great  variety  of  opinions  that  have 
been  published  concerning  the  statue.  S.  Reinach  2  attributes 
it  to  a  sculptor  of  the  early  fourth  century,  one  who  was  in- 


1  Quoted  from  E.  von  Mach,  p.  326.     2  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  1901, 
pp.  295ff. 


320  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

fluenced  by  Polykleitos,  —  he  seems  to  think  of  M.  Andre's 
heavy  proportions. 

A.  S.  Arvanistopoulos *  dates  it  still  further  back,  perhaps  to 
Alkamenes,  noting  probably  a  certain  lack  of  refinement  of 
finish  in  the  restoration  compared  with  the  dignified  pose. 

Charles  Waldstein  at  first 2  believed  the  statue  showed  the 
style  of  Praxiteles  and  later  3  changed  his  view,  so  that  he  as- 
signed the  work  to  Skopas  —  his  judgment  was  based  on  the 
pose  and  the  general  appearance  of  the  statue. 

Ernest  Gardner  4  considers  the  statue  a  work  of  the  Hellen- 
istic age,  which  "  combines  s  much  that  is  good  from  earlier 
artists,  but  with  a  theatrical  pose,  an  anatomical  realism,  and 
an  absence  of  self-contained  dignity  proper  to  the  later  age." 

The  same  view  has  been  taken  by  the  writer,6  who,  in  com- 
menting on  the  points  of  resemblance  which  the  statue  has 
with  works  of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ,  adds  that, 
"  Greek  artists  of  the  autumn  days,  or  even  of  a  later  period, 
were  well  able  to  adopt  some  of  the  characteristics  of  an  earlier 
school." 

The  gesture  of  the  statue  is  a  peculiar  one,  which  has  not 
yet  found  a  universally  satisfactory  solution. 7 

PLATE  291.  Aphrodite  Of  MelOS.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Found  in  1820  in  a  grotto  on  the  island  of  Melos.  Bought  by  the 
Marquis  de  Riviere  in  1821  and  presented  to  Louis  XVIII,  who  placed 
it  in  the  Louvre.  Restorations :  the  end  of  the  nose,  part  of  the  lower 
lip,  the  big  toe  of  the  right  foot,  and  a  few  small  pieces  elsewhere 
restored  in  plaster.  Frohner,  136,  with  the  bibliography  up  to  1869; 


'In  a  monograph  on  the  statue,  Athens,  1903.  2  Monthly  Review, 
June,  1901,  pp.  noff.  3  The  Illustrated  London  News,  June  6,  1903. 
•*/•  H-  S.,  XXIII,  1903,  pp.  I52ff.  s  Quoted  from  the  review,  A.  J.  A., 
p.  465.  6E.  von  Mach,  p.  326.  7  Compare,  however,  the  remarks  on 
this  gesture  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  321 

F.  W.,  1448-1450,  with  the  bibliography  brought  up  to  1885;  E,  von 
Mach,  pp.  30 iff. ;  Robinson,  539,  with  important  bibliography  up  to 
1896;  to  which  add  Reinach  Chron.  d.  Arts,  February  9,  1901;  and 
Michon,  R.Et.Gr.  XIII,  1900,  pp.  3O2ff.  Reinach  I,  172,  5.  These 
references  by  no  means  include  everything  that  has  been  written  on  the 
statue.  They  will,  however,  serve  as  an  introduction  and,  by  means  of 
cross  references,  introduce  the  student  to  the  complete  bibliography. 

PLATE  292a.  Front  View  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  Plate  291, 
Reinach  I,  172,  6. 

PLATE  292b.  Torso  Of  Draped  Woman.  Of  marble.  Glyptothek 
Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  pub- 
lished. Copenhagen,  Catalogue,  273 ;  Reinach  I,  338,  5. 

No  other  statue  of  ancient  art  has  so  completely  absorbed 
the  interest  of  all  intelligent  people  as  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos, 
and  no  other  is  so  universally  admired  as  she.  Popular 
admiration  is  proverbially  indiscriminate,  and  although  it  has 
been  bestowed  in  this  instance  on  a  worthy  subject,  the  quali- 
ties of  the  statue  are  not  those  which  some  people  ascribe  to 
her.  She  is  not,  in  the  first  place,  of  the  impersonal  grandeur 
that  characterizes  the  age  of  Pheidias,  nor  is  she  a  creation  of 
such  supreme  harmony  that  she  is  beyond  reproach  in  every 
respect.  She  is,  however,  designed  to  satisfy  the  beauty- 
loving  taste  of  spectators  by  means  of  her  general  grandeur 
and  the  perfection  of  modelling  of  her  most  noticeable  parts. 
How  people  at  first  ascribed  her  to  Pheidias  is  to-day  incom- 
prehensible, and  similarly  strange,  future  generations  will  think, 
are  the  attempts  J  of  some  scholars  of  to-day  to  identify  her 
with  the  work  of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ.  A  glance 
at  the  Aphrodite  of  Aries,  Plate  203,  at  once  reveals  the  gulf 
that  lies  between  "  Our  Lady  of  Melos  "  and  the  conceptions 
of  Praxiteles 2  and  his  co-workers.  The  former  statue,  however 

1  For  an  explanation  of  these  attempts  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  301  ff. 

2  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Aphrodite  of  Aries  is  only  a  copy. 


3*2       GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

much  designed  to  please  the  eye,  makes  allowances  also  to  the 
intelligent  knowledge,  on  the  part  of  the  spectator,  of  the  sub- 
ject portrayed ;  the  garment  is  large  enough  to  cover  the 
figure  if  the  goddess  should  pull  it  about  herself.  The  Aphro- 
dite of  Melos  appeals  almost  exclusively  to  the  eye  of  the 
spectator,  to  his  senses,  and  not  to  his  knowledge.  For 
reasons  of  design,  the  drapery  is  much  smaller  than  is  natural. 

The  type  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  is  not  unique.  It  is  a 
development  of  such  figures  as  the  statue  in  Berlin,  Plate  103, 
and,  more  directly,  of  the  statue  in  Copenhagen,  Plate  292^ 
although  this  particular  copy  has  suffered  by  the  exaggerations 
in  her  drapery,  which  may  be  due  to  the  individual  likings  of 
a  late  adaptor.  From  this  type,  preserved  in  the  Copen- 
hagen figure,  various  statues  are  derived  besides  the  Aphrodite 
of  Melos,  the  most  important  of  which  are  the  Nike  of  Brescia, 
Plate  301,  and  a  figure  of  Nike  on  the  Column  of  Trajan.1  The 
Aphrodite  of  Capua,  Plate  293,  is  more  directly  influenced  by 
the  statue  from  Melos,  these  two  being  the  only  ones  in  which 
the  drapery  of  the  upper  part  of  the  body  is  omitted. 

For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  name  of  the  statue,  of  its 
date  and  restorations,  reference  must  be  made  to  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  soiff.,  and  the  other  books  and  articles  mentioned  above. 
A  few  words,  however,  ought  to  be  given  to  the  popular  mis- 
take of  calling  the  figure  "  Venus  de  Milo  "  or  "  of  Milo,"  giving 
to  the  letter  "  i  "  the  continental  pronunciation  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  English  "  e,"  or  finally,  of  pronouncing  the  word 
"  Milo  "  according  to  the  English  quality  of  "  i." 

Venus  is  the  Latin  equivalent  of  the  Greek  Aphrodite  and, 
therefore,  less  applicable  to  this  Greek  statue.  It  is,  however, 
also  the  common  French  name  of  the  goddess,  and  has  gained 
currency  because  the  statue  became  known  through  French 
publications. 

1  Text  Illustration,  28. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  323 

The  word  "  Milo  "  is  the  continental  endeavor  to  spell  the 
word  as  it  ought  to  be  pronounced,  since  in  modern  Greek 
the  "e"  in  Melos  is  like  the  English  "e."  The  "s"  had 
dropped  off  in  common  speech  long  before  the  statue  was 
discovered.  If  the  French  authors  had  retained  the  "  e "  in 
Melos,  the  people  would  have  mispronounced  it  to  sound  like 
what  an  Englishman  would  spell  Malos.  In  short,  Venus  de 
Milo  is  the  French  name  of  the  statue.  To  retain  this  in 
English  is  needless.  If,  however,  it  is  retained,  it  ought  to  be 
pronounced  with  the  French  accent.  To  translate  the  French 
"  de  "  into  the  English  "  of"  and  to  keep  the  other  two  words 
of  the  foreign  name,  calling  the  statue  Venus  of  Milo  is 
affected ;  while  to  keep  the  French  spelling  "  Milo "  and  to 
pronounce  it  as  if  it  were  an  English  word  is  barbarous. 

Equally  unwarranted  it  seems  to  keep  to  the  French  "Venus" 
and  to  translate  "  de  Milo  "  into  "  of  MeloSo"  This  is  reason- 
able only  if  the  person  who  speaks  of  the  "  Venus  of  Melos  " 
consistently  uses  the  term  "  Venus  "  instead  of  "  Aphrodite." 
The  latter  name,  however,  has  become  so  well  known,  not  only 
in  recent  French  and  German  books,  but  also  in  English 
writings,  that  it  may  be  used  without  fear  of  its  being  unin- 
telligible. 

PLATE  293.  Aphrodite  Of  Capua.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples. 
Discovered  during  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  the  ruins  of 
the  amphitheatre  at  Capua,  whence  it  was  taken  first  to  the  castle  of 
Casertaand  later  to  Naples.  Restorations;  the  nose,  both  arms  and 
the  end  of  the  drapery  over  the  left  thigh.  F.  W.,  1452;  Robinson, 
542 ;  Reinach  I,  320,  5  and  6. 

As  the  base  of  the  statue  shows,  another  figure  was  grouped 
with  it,  probably  Eros.  He  appears  as  the  companion  of 
Aphrodite  on  a  coin  of  the  Roman  colony  of  Korinth,  which 
reproduces  a  temple  image  almost  identical  with  the  statue 


324  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

from  Capua.  In  her  arms  she  held  the  shield  of  Ares,  in 
which  she  watched  her  reflection.  His  helmet  is  under  her 
foot,  indicating  that  the  lord  of  battles  has  sucumbed  to  the 
goddess  of  love.  The  only  difference  between  the  coin  and 
the  statue  in  Naples  is  that  in  the  latter  the  shield  rested  on 
the  leg,  as  is  indicated  by  the  angular  cut  in  a  fold  there ; 
while  in  the  former,  Aphrodite  holds  the  shield  up  in  her  arms. 
The  brittleness  of  marble  required  a  support  for  the  shield,  in 
order  to  relieve  the  arms. 

The  present  restoration  of  the  statue  must  be  corrected  by 
supplying  the  shield  and  changing  the  position  of  the  arms  so 
that  the  hands  may  lay  hold  of  it. 

Wolters  points  out  that  the  forms  of  Aphrodite  are  rather 
too  soft  in  modelling  to  be  lastingly  satisfactory,  but  that  they 
are  in  keeping  with  the  motive,  which  is  slight  —  a  vain  god- 
dess of  love  watching  her  own  reflection. 

The  relation  of  this  figure  to  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  and 
kindred  statues  has  been  pointed  out  above,  page  322.  It  is 
not  so  close  that  one  need  think  of  an  actual  copy,  while  it 
presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the  general  type  mentioned  above. 

PLATE  294.  Crouching  Aphrodite.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Discovered  in  1760  on  an  estate  situated  on  the  Via  Praenestina,  and 
acquired  for  the  Vatican  by  Pope  Pius  VI  (1775-1798).  Restorations: 
the  hair,  except  the  locks  lying  on  the  neck;  the  entire  back  part  of  the 
head;  all  the  fingers  of  both  hands,  except  the  left  thumb;  probably 
also  the  entire  right  hand;  the  front  of  the  right  foot  and  several  toes 
of  the  left  foot;  practically  the  entire  base.1  The  face  has  been 
retouched.  Helbig,  252;  Reinach  I,  339,  i  and  2;  compare  also, 
F.  W.,  1467. 

This  statue  is   commonly  known   as  the  Aphrodite  of 

1  This  includes  the  artist's  name  on  the  base,  for  which  see  Loewy, 
Inschriften  griechischer  Bildhauer,  No.  497. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  325 

Daidalos,  although  the  grounds  on  which  it  has  been 
attributed  to  this  artist  are  slight.  Three  sculptors  of  this 
name  are  known.  The  first,  belonging  to  the  archaic 
period,  is  perhaps  a  mythical  person  ; r  the  second  lived 
toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  and  was  an  artist  of 
Sikyon,  a  compatriot  of  Lysippos ; 2  while  the  third,  of 
whom  little  is  known,  was  born  in  Bithynia  and  worked 
in  the  Hellenistic  Period.3  Pliny*  mentions  a  Bathing 
Aphrodite  by  Daidalos  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  in  Rome, 
and  it  is  this  statue  which  several  modern  scholars  believe 
is  copied  in  the  Vatican  Aphrodite  and  the  great  number 
of  similar  extant  statues.  Formerly  the  fourth  century 
Daidalos  was  mentioned  as  the  possible  originator  of  this 
type.  This  view,  however,  is  generally  abandoned 5  to-day, 
because  all  these  crouching  figures  seem  to  stand  clearly 
under  the  art  influences  characteristic  of  the  Hellenistic 
Period. 

The  Vatican  statue  is  a  genre  piece,  but  the  motive  of 
the  bathing  goddess  is  almost  forgotten  over  the  display 
and  the  arrangement  of  her  bodily  charms.  It  is  very 
different  in  this  respect  from  the  Knidian  Aphrodite,  Plates 
198  and  igga,  and  compared  with  her,  marks  the  difference 
of  artistic  aims  in  the  two  periods  to  which  the  statues 
owe  their  origin. 

PLATE  295.  Ariadne.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome.  Date  and 
place  of  discovery  unknown.  Already  during  the  papacy  of  Julius  II 

"See  E.  von  Mach,  p.  103.  2  Some  ancient  writers  give  Argos  as 
the  home  of  Lysippos.  3  He  made  a  statue  of  Zeus  for  Nikomedeia, 
a  city  which  was  founded  in  380  B.  C.  4  Pliny,  N.  H.,  36,  35.  s  For 
the  discussion  of  this  question  and  the  coins  of  Bithynia  and  a  few 
fourth  century  gems,  see  Helbig,  252,  and  F.  W.,  1467. 


326  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

(1503-1513)  the  figure  adorned  a  fountain  in  the  Belvedere  Garden 
Restorations:  the  entire  rock  and  all  the  vertical  folds  of  the  garment 
falling  over  it,  also  the  horizontal  section  of  this  garment  between 
the  left  knee  of  Ariadne  and  the  rock  below  her  elbow;  further,  the 
nose,  the  lips,  the  right  hand  and  several  fingers  of  the  left  hand. 
Helbig,  214;  F.  W.,  1572;  Robinson,  758;  Reinach  I,  385,  2.  For 
the  replica  in  Madrid,  see  F.  W.,  1573;  Reinach  I,  415,  2. 

In  discussing  this  statue  Helbig  comes  to  the  same  con- 
clusion that  was  reached  by  the  writer  in  respect  to  the 
Farnese  Bull,  Plate  271,  that  it  is  a  copy  after  a  painting 
and  not  after  a  piece  of  sculpture.  Helbig's  arguments, 
which  are  based  on  extant  replicas  of  the  type  in  mural 
paintings,  in  reliefs  and  in  a  few  statues,  are  almost  identi- 
cal with  those  advanced  by  the  writer  in  connection  with 
the  Farnese  Bull. 

The  statue  represents  Ariadne,  who  had  fallen  into  a 
troubled  sleep  just  before  Theseus  left  her  and  Dionysos 
appeared  as  her  saviour.  The  arrangement  of  her  drapery 
and  her  awkward  pose  perfectly  express  this  idea.  Ari- 
adne appears  to  have  moved  uneasily  in  her  sleep.  The 
resulting  lines,  perplexing  at  first  but  not  confused,  are  in 
keeping  with  some  of  the  art  tendencies  of  the  Hellenistic 
Period,  as  they  are  noted  above  in  connection  with  reliefs 
of  the  altar  from  Pergamon,  Plates  265ff.,  the  Farnese  Bull, 
Plate  271,  and  the  Nile,  Plate  278. 

PLATE  296.  Artemis  Of  Versailles.  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  It  was  carried  from  Rome  to 
France  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  after  having  been  erected  in 
several  places,  added  to  the  collection  of  the  Louvre  in  1798.  Restora- 
tions :  the  nose,  both  ears,  a  part  of  the  neck,  the  right  hand  and  part 
of  the  lower  right  arm,  the  entire  left  arm  and  hand,  the  right  foot  and 
upper  part  of  right  leg,  the  end  of  the  large  toe  of  the  left  foot,  the  two 
ends  of  the  quiver  and  several  small  pieces  in  the  drapery,  the  hair  and 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  327 

other  parts  of  the  statue.  Frohner,  98;  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3o8ff. ;  F.  W., 
1531  ;  Robinson,  660;  Reinach  I,  143,  4-6.  For  the  suggestion  that 
Artemis  ought  to  be  grouped  with  the  Belvedere  Apollo  see  the  re- 
marks to  Plate  272.  R.  Dussand,  Rev.  Arch.,  1896,  28,  suggests  an 
entirely  new  restoration  of  the  statue  with  both  arms  raised  as  just 
having  shot  her  arrow  and  looking  ahead  at  her  prey.  For  the  picture 
of  a  hunting  goddess  see  the  Megarian  bowl  from  Thebes  in  the  British 
Museum,/.  H.  S.,  XXII,  1902,  p.  3,  fig.  2. 

This  statue  is  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3088".  The 
important  points  are  : 

1.  Artemis  is  impressive  not  by  means  of  her  expressed 
character,  but  by  means  of  her  body  and  the  movement  of  her 
body. 

2.  She  wears  the  long  chiton  girt  up  high  so  that  it  appears 
short.     (Compare  Plate  206  and  the  remarks  to  it.) 

3.  The  fold   over  the  left  knee  is  studied  in  effect,  and 
characteristic  of  the  taste  of  a  late  period  that  loved  to  suggest 
more  than  it  considered  modest  to  carve. 

4.  The  fussiness  of  the  folds  of  the  garment  reminds  one 
of  that  of  the  Niobid  in  Florence,  Plate  222,  which  stands  in 
strong  contrast  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Niobid  Chiaramonti, 
Plate  221. 

5.  The  simplicity  of  the  not   dissimilar  torso  in  Copen- 
hagen, Plate  305,  suggests  that  the  Artemis  of  Versailles  is  not 
an  original,  "an  idea  which  is  well  sustained  by  the  rather 
poorly  modelled  hind  and  the  awkward  support." 

PLATE  297.  Athena  GiUStiniani.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Discovered,  date  unknown,  near  the  church  of  S.  Maria  sopra  Minerva. 
It  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Giustiniani  family  early  in  the  seven- 
teenth century.  Later  it  belonged  to  Lucian  Bonaparte,  who  sold  it  to 
Pope  Pius  VII  ( 1800-1823)  for  the  Vatican.  Restorations :  the  sphinx 
on  the  helmet,  except  the  feet ;  the  lower  half  of  the  right  forearm  and 
the  spear,  except  its  lowest  part,  which  was  preserved;  several  fingers 
and  the  head  of  the  serpent.  Helbig,  51;  F.  W.,  1436;  Robinson, 
588;  Reinach  I,  233,  t. 


328  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  critics  of  this  statue  are  much  divided  in  opinion,  some 
holding  that  it  is  a  copy  of  an  original  of  the  fourth,  or  per- 
haps even  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  and  that  the  elabora- 
tion of  the  drapery  and  the  gesture  of  the  left  hand,  almost 
nervously  playing  with  the  edge  of  the  mantle,  are  innovations 
introduced  in  the  otherwise  accurate  copy  by  the  late  sculptor. 
Others,  however,  consider  these  so-called  innovations  of  such 
importance  that  they  believe  they  are  indications  of  the  date 
when  the  statue  was  made.  The  strong  reminders  of  an  earlier 
art  in  the  dignified  pose  and  in  the  shape  of  the  head  they  ex- 
plain as  natural  in  the  Hellenistic  age,  when  sculptors  con- 
stantly borrowed  older  types  which  they  changed  more  or  less 
to  suit  their  needs.1 

This  latter  view  gains  in  probability  owing  to  the  fact  that 
both  the  sphinx  on  the  helmet  and  the  snake  at  the  side  of 
Athena  are  copied  from  the  Athena  Parthenos  by  Pheidias, 
Plates  96ff. 

Although  Athena  is  provided  with  her  attributes  of  war, 
spear,  aigis,  and  helmet,  she  is  conceived  here  as  the  goddess 
of  intellect.  The  snake  at  her  side,  which  has  given  her  the 
mistaken  name  Athena  Medica,  is  more  probably  meant  to 
represent  the  mythical  Erechthonios,  who  was  often  thus  rep- 
resented ;  unless  it  is  perhaps  nothing  but  a  thoughtless  copy 
of  one  of  the  attributes  of  the  Parthenos. 

PLATE  298.  Athena  Chlaramonti.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Discovered  during  the  papacy  of  Pius  VI  (1775-1798)  in  the  ruins  of 
the  so-called  Villa  of  Cassius  in  Tivoli,  together  with  seven  statues  of 
Muses  and  a  statue  of  the  cithar-playing  Apollo.  Restorations:  the 
crest  of  the  helmet,  the  tip  of  the  nose  and  both  arms.  F.  W.,  1437. 
A  replica  of  the  same  statue  is  also  in  the  Vatican.  On  it  the  left 
arm  is  more  pleasingly  restored  as  hanging  almost  straight  down  at  the 
side.  Reinach  I,  233,  5. 

1  For  a  discussion  of  this  habit  see  the  remarks  on  Plates  2651!. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  329 

"  Not  only  the  execution,  but  also  the  invention  of  this 
figure  is  insignificant,"  Wolters  says  in  his  accurate  estimate 
of  the  Athena  Chiaramonti.  She  is,  no  donbt,  a  very  late 
creation,  perhaps  even  of  Roman  times,  when  Apollo  and 
Athena  were  often  grouped  together  with  the  nine  muses  on 
sarcophagus  reliefs  ;  and  this  statue,  as  noted  above,  was  found 
together  with  Apollo  and  the  muses  in  the  ruins  of  an  ancient 
villa. 

She  is,  barring  her  wrongly  restored  left  arm,  pleasing  to 
look  at,  but  compared  with  other  fine  Athena  types,1  insignifi- 
cant and  uninteresting. 

PLATE  299.  Melpomene.  Colossal  statue  of  marble.  Louvre, 
Paris.  Probably  discovered,  date  unknown,  in  the  ruins  of  the  theatre 
of  Pompey.  The  statue  was  restored  during  the  papacy  of  Pope  Pius  VI 
(1775-179%)  and  placed  in  the  Vatican.  Napoleon  I  carried  it  away  to 
France.  Restorations  :  the  tip  of  the  nose,  the  lower  lip,  the  right  fore- 
arm and  the  mask,  the  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  several  toes  of  the  right 
foot,  the  edge  of  the  cloak  and  several  fragments  in  the  drapery. 
Frohner,  386;  F.  W.,  1442;  Reinach  I,  160,3.  For  a  head  of  Mel- 
pomene in  Athens  see  F.  W.,  1444;  for  other  statues  of  Melpomene 
see  Reinach  I, 


This  statue,  which  is  about  twelve  feet  in  height,  is  carved 
of  one  colossal  block  of  marble  and  is  probably  the  largest  ex- 
tant ancient  statue.  It  was  no  doubt  designed  for  a  distant 
view  and  its  place  of  discovery,  the  ruins  of  the  theatre  of 
Pompey,  indicates  that  it  was  erected  in  one  of  the  niches  of 
this  colossal  building. 

Melpomene  is  the  muse  of  the  tragic  art.  Her  attribute  is, 
therefore,  the  mask  ;  2  which,  although  it  is  a  restoration  in  the 
Louvre  copy,  is  attested  to  by  other  replicas.  Often  she  also 

'Compare  Plates  95,96,  101,  107,  and  297.  2  Ancient  actors  invari- 
ably wore  masks. 


33°  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

carried  the  club  of  Herakles,1  the  best  known  of  the  many 
heroes  whose  legends  formed  the  subjects  of  the  majority  of 
Greek  tragedies. 

The  high  belted  garment  is  characteristic  of  actors,  who 
with  it  appeared  to  be  larger  than  they  were. 

The  statue  is  dignified  and,  barring  the  slightly  sentimental 
turn  of  the  head,  well  able  to  suggest  the  pathos  of  tragedy. 

PLATE  300.  Polyhymnia.  Of  marble.  Berlin.  Discovered  by 
Frascati,  exact  date  unknown,  in  the  ruins  of  a  villa  supposed  to  have 
belonged  to  Marias  ;  formerly  in  the  collection  Polignac  ;  later  in  Sans 
Souci.  Restorations  :  the  head,  the  neck,  the  left  breast  and  shoulder, 
the  left  arm  except  its  lower  half,  the  left  hand,  the  greater  part  of  the 
right  hand  and  the  lower  right  arm,  the  greater  part  of  the  right 
shoulder  and  back,  the  left  foot,  the  lower  left  leg,  the  base,  the  larger 
part  of  the  rock  and  fragments  of  the  drapery.  Berlin  Museum  Cata- 
logue, 221 ;  Reinach  I,  275,  7.  For  the  replica  in  the  Louvre  see 
Frohner,  391  ;  Reinach  I,  166,  3.  Both  restorations  are  based  on  ex- 
tant monuments,  see,  for  instance,  the  relief  in  the  Louvre,  Reinach  I, 
106,  4 ;  and  the  Apotheosis  of  Homer,  Plate  310. 

Polyhymnia  is  the  muse  par  excellence,  without  any  further 
designation ;  while  all  her  sisters  are  muses  either  of  tragedy  or 
comedy  or  music,  etc.  She  generally  stands  closely  wrapped 
in  her  garment,  and  in  reliefs  is  often  represented  in  a  gently 
swaying  or  dancing  attitude. 

The  upper  part  of  this  figure  is  so  extensively  restored  that 
it  is  not  advisable  to  draw  any  conclusions  from  it.  The  folds 
of  the  drapery  below,  however,  are  interesting.  They  are 
heavy  and  vertical  in  front,  gradually  curving  at  the  bottom, 
until  in  the  back  they  assume  curves  of  easy  grace.  A  very 
similar  transition  from  stiff  folds  to  easy  curves  of  drapery 

1  This  interpretation  is  doubted  by  some  scholars,  who  see  in  the 
club  the  attribute  of  Dike  (Justice),  Moira  (Fate),  or  Ananke  (Neces- 
sity). 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  331 

is  noted  on  the  Aphrodite  '  Kalipyge  in  Naples,  Reinach  I, 


PLATE  301.  Nike  Of  Brescia.  Of  bronze.  Temple  of  Ves- 
pasian, arranged  as  a  museum,  Brescia.  Discovered  in  1826  near  the 
west  side  of  the  temple  built  by  Vespasian  (69-79  A.  D.).  Restora- 
tions :  insignificant  and  assured  by  the  remains.  Diitschke  IV,  375, 
with  full  bibliography  ;  F.  W.,  1453  ;  Reinach  I,  348,  I. 

The  connection  of  this  Nike  with  the  type  preserved  in  the 
Aphrodite  of  Melos,  Plate  291,  and  the  Aphrodite  of  Capua, 
Plate  293,  has  been  noted  in  the  discussion  of  those  statues. 
The  shield  on  which  this  Nike  is  inscribing  the  name  of  the 
victory  to  be  commemorated,  is  as  appropriate  in  her  hands 
as  it  seems  strained  in  the  hands  of  an  Aphrodite,  although 
even  there  it  finds  a  reasonable  explanation.  It  is,  therefore, 
impossible  to  determine  whether  the  type  of  these  figures  was 
invented  as  Nike  or  Aphrodite,  or  possibly  a  still  different 
deity. 

PLATES  302  and  303.  Nike  of  Samothrace.  Of  marble.  Louvre, 
Paris.  Discovered  on  the  island  of  Samothrace  in  1863,  and  imme- 
diately removed  to  the  Louvre,  except  the  blocks  of  the  base,  which 
were  left  on  Samothrace  until  1879.  Restorations:  one  hundred  and 
eighteen  pieces  into  which  the  statue  was  broken  have  been  joined. 
E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3o6ff.  ;  Frohner,  476;  F.  W.,  1358-1359;  Robinson, 
759  ;  Reinach  II,  380,  2  and  3.  The  first  accurate  interpretation  and 
dating  of  the  statue  by  Conze,  Hauser  and  Benndorf,  Untersuchungcn 
auf  Samothrace.  For  further  bibliography  see  F.  W.,  1358-1359. 

This  statue  is  discussed  in  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  3o6f.  ;  the 
important  points  being  : 

'H.  Heydemann,  Jahrbuch  II,  1887,  pp.  I25ff.,  compares  this  statue 
with  a  vase  painting  and  says  it  is  not  a  statue  of  Aphrodite,  but  a 
statue  of  a  Hetaira,  or,  to  use  a  modern  equivalent,  a  "  chorus  girl." 


332  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

1.  The  date  of  the  statue  is  established  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  erected  to  commemorate  a  naval  victory  in  306  B.  C. 

2.  Reproductions    of   the   statue  on   coins   show  Nike 
blowing  the  fanfare  of  victory  and  holding  what  seems  to 
be  a  trophy  in  her  left  hand. 

3.  Mastery  over  space  is   the  keynote  of   the    statue. 
She  seems  actually  to  be  moving  through  space. 

4.  The  devices  by  means  of  which  movement  has  been 
indicated  render  any  special  view  of  the  statue  undesirable 
for  any  length  of  time.     If  one  begins  by  looking  at  the 
statue  from  the  front,  the  lines  of  the  folds  vigorously  carry 
one  to  the  side,  and  vice  versa. 

5.  There  may  be  a  question  whether  such  conceptions 
of  motion  properly  belong  to  the  sphere  of  sculpture. 

PLATE  304.  Themis  Of  Rhamnous.  Of  marble.  National  Mu- 
seum, Athens.  Discovered  in  the  temple  of  Themis  in  Rhamnous  in 
1890.  Restorations  :  a  few  small  defects  of  the  figure  are  repaired  in 
plaster.  Kavvadias,  231  :  Reinach  I,  244,  4. 

The  inscription  r  on  the  base  of  this  statue  reads  in  sub- 
stance :  Megakles,  son  of  Megakles,  of  Rhamnous,  dedi- 
cated this  statue  in  honor  of  a  choraic  victory.2  The 
sculptor  was  Chairestratos,  son  of  Chairedemos  of  Rham- 
nous. Nothing  else  is  known  of  this  artist ;  his  date, 
however,  is  determined  by  the  character  of  the  letters 
which  were  in  use  in  the  early  third  century  before  Christ. 

This  statue  deservedly  has  come  to  be  a  favorite ;  for  so 
pronounced  are  its  merits  and  so  almost  hidden  its  defects 
that  one  is  impressed  by  the  former  and  apt  to  forget  the 

*  Not  seen  in  the  illustration.  2  For  memorials  of  choraic  victories 
see  Plate  253. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  333 

latter.  The  charm  of  the  head,  set  straight  on  youthful 
shoulders,  is  unequalled  in  Greek  art.  It  conveys  the  idea 
of  kind  and  thoughtful  justice,  and  is  enhanced  by  the  con- 
trast between  the  severe  folds  of  the  outer  garment  (hima- 
tion)  and  the  close-fitting  softness  of  the  chiton  on  the 
upper  part  of  the  body.  The  body  of  the  goddess  is  seen 
to  be  slight,  but  the  arrangement  of  the  himation  adds  to 
it  considerable  weight.  This  is  largely  due  to  that  part  of 
the  himation  which  falls  from  the  left  arm.  The  material 
heaviness  of  these  marble  folds,  however,  needed  a  sup- 
port, which  was  provided  by  an  unnatural  width  of  the 
chiton  over  the  feet,  a  width  entirely  out  of  keeping  with 
the  garment  revealed  at  the  waistline.  This  device  consti- 
tutes one  of  the  strongest  defects  of  the  statue.  It  is  no 
doubt  inspired  by  a  similar  device  in  the  statue  of  Diony- 
sos,  Plate  187,  but  differs  from  it  in  that  it  supplies  nothing 
new  to  the  conception  of  the  figure. 

A  sensitive  eye  is  further  offended  by  the  arrangement 
of  the  himation  about  the  waist  and  the  ensuing  heavy 
lines,  also  by  the  point  tucked  —  or  rather  suggested  as 
being  tucked  —  under  the  left  arm.  The  long,  deep  folds 
running  up  from  the  right  ankle  toward  the  left  elbow  in- 
troduce another  disturbing  element.  They  are  unpleasant 
as  appears  especially  when  the  lower  part  of  Themis  is 
contrasted '  with  the  fragment  of  a  draped  woman  in 
Berlin,  Plate  252. 

All  these  defects,  however,  are  of  slight  consequence 
compared  with  the  general  dignity  and  charm  of  the  statue. 


1  The  garment  of  the  woman  in  Berlin  is  as  much  superior  to  that  of 
Themis  as  the  latter  is  superior  to  the  garments  of  the  torso  in  Copen- 
hagen, Plate  292!},  and  of  the  Nike  of  Brescia,  Plate  301. 


334  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  beautiful  upper  part  of  the  figure  makes  so  immedi- 
ate and  so  lasting  an  appeal  that  one  rarely  finds  the 
time  to  pay  attention  to  the  less  satisfactory  lower  part. 

In  its  technique  and  the  use  of  special  tools  for  special 
purposes,  this  Themis  resembles  the  Nike  of  Samothrace, 
Plates  302  and  303.  This,  however,  does  not  appear  in 
the  photograph. 

PLATE  305.    Torso  of  Draped  Woman,  Artemis.     Of  marble. 

Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery 
not  published.  Copenhagen  Catalogue,  1 50. 

This  magnificent  torso,  probably  designated  as  Artemis 
by  the  quiver  strap,  has  been  mentioned  above  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Artemis  of  Versailles,  over  which  it  has  the 
advantage  of  comparative  simplicity.  Strangely  enough, 
the  fold  over  the  left  knee  appears  also  here,  although  in  a 
much  more  delicate  way.  It  shows  here  the  desire  of  the 
artist  to  impress  the  spectator  by  means  of  the  contrast 
between  the  nude  and  the  drapery,  a  desire  which  has  led 
to  the  beautiful  treatment  of  the  right  side  of  the  figure 
above  the  girdle. 

Some  of  the  folds  of  the  garment  are  undoubtedly  in- 
spired by  the  "Nike"1  of  the  Parthenon,  Plate  139,  and 
suggest  a  similarly  rapid  movement  through  space  as  that 
of  the  "  Nike."  The  converging  folds  at  the  right  side  of 
the  figure,  indicating  the  fluttering  of  a  windswept  drapery, 
deserve  special  attention. 


1  If  the  "  Nike  "  seems  to  lose  in  delicacy  compared  with  the  Copen- 
hagen torso,  it  must  be  remembered  that  she  was  intended  to  be  seen 
at  a  very  considerable  height. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  335 


Reliefs  of  the  Hellenistic  Period. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  characteristics  of  the  numer- 
ous reliefs  of  the  Hellenistic  Period  is  their  tendency  to 
show  pictorial  qualities.  The  appeal  of  the  majority  of 
them  is  the  appeal  of  a  picture ; x  and  since  sculpture  can- 
not do  justice  to  any  but  its  own  appropriate  subjects, 
most  Hellenistic  reliefs  fail  to  give  entire  satisfaction. 
The  skill  of  the  artists  on  the  other  hand,  is  so  great  that 
many  reliefs  are  not  only  pleasant  to  look  at  but  profitable 
to  study.  A  small  selection  of  typical  reliefs  is  given  on 
Plates  3o6ff.  The  most  important  books2  are  Schreiber, 
Die  Hellenistischen  Reliefbilder,  and  Hauser,  Neuattischc 
Reliefs. 

PLATE  306.  Endymion.  Of  marble.  Capitoline,  Rome.  Dis- 
covered on  the  Aventine  during  the  papacy  of  Clement  XI  (1700- 
1721).  Restorations:  several  locks  of  Endymion,  the  front  of  his 
right  foot,  the  great  toe  of  his  left  foot,  and  the  point  of  his  lance. 
Helbig,  462. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  relief  copies  a  paint- 
ing. When  it  is  imagined  painted  all  its  charms  are  en- 
hanced, and  most  of  its  defects  disappear.  The  rocky 
background,  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  expressed  in 
sculpture,  receives  its  proper  treatment,  and  the  left  side  of 
the  sleeping  Endymion,  which  now  almost  disappears  from 
view,  is  prominently  brought  to  notice  ;  the  painted  light 

1  Not  a  few  of  the  reliefs  are  undoubted  copies  of  pictures. 

2  Wickhoff,  Roman  Art,  takes  a  unique  position.    He  assigns  all  these 
picture-reliefs  to  Roman  art. 


336  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  the  whole  picture,  doubtless  suggested  the  approach  of 
Selene,  the  goddess  of  the  moon,  who,  according  to  tradi- 
tion, came  to  surprise  the  tired  hunter.  This  again  will 
explain  the  excitement  and  fear  of  the  dog  —  notice  his 
tail  —  which  in  the  unpainted  relief  seems  strangely  out  of 
keeping  with  the  sleeping  Endymion. 

The  lines  of  the  body  of  Endymion  are  entirely  unlike 
those  familiar  to  Greek  sculpture,  but  may  have  been 
characteristic  of  a  certain  school  of  painting.  The  droop- 
ing head  and  long  neck  of  the  boy  and  the  elongation  of 
all  his  members  distinctly  remind  the  modern  spectator  of 
the  peculiarities  of  that  brotherhood  of  artists  of  which 
Burne-Jones  is  the  most  prominent  representative. 

PLATE  307.  Dancing  Woman.  Of  marble.  Theatre  of  Dionysos, 
Athens.  Discovered  in  the  theatre  of  Dionysos  in  Athens  in  1862. 
F.  W.,  1878. 

PLATE  308.  Dancing  Woman.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Constanti- 
nople. Discovered  in  Pergamon  during  the  recent  excavations.  Antike 
Denkmdler  II,  Plate  35  and  text. 

These  two  reliefs  are  samples  of  a  large  class  of  decora- 
tive reliefs,  the  aim  of  which  was  to  please  by  means  of 
rich  and  beautifully  arranged  draperies.  They  might  be 
called  studies  in  draperies,  and  seem  to  have  belonged  to 
the  general  stock  of  knowledge  of  the  Hellenistic  artists. 
The  Dancing  Woman  from  Athens  occurs1  with  no,  or  only 
slight  variations,  on  a  number  of  extant  monuments. 

PLATE  309.    Apollo,  Artemis,  Leto  and  Nike.    Of  marble.    Villa 

Albani.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published.  Restorations : 
part  of  the  pillar  to  the  left,  the  right  hand  and  elbow  of  Leto  and  the 

1  See  F.  W.,  1878. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  337 

part  of  the  drapery  hanging  below  her  right  elbow,  and  a  great  part  of 
her  figure  between  her  right  hip  and  her  knees;  the  right  thumb  and 
forefinger  of  Artemis ;  the  tip  of  the  nose  and  the  right  hand  of  Apollo; 
the  tip  of  the  nose,  most  of  the  left  hand,  thumb  and  forefinger  of  the 
right  hand,  and  fragments  of  the  wings  of  Nike.  Helbig,  779;  Robin- 
son, 590. 

In  view  of  the  studied  stiffness  of  the  draperies  on  this 
relief,  Helbig  suggests  that  it  may  be  a  free  copy  of  an 
archaic  work,  and  adduces  in  substantiation  of  his  view 
the  fragment  of  a  relief  in  the  Baracco  collection,1  "repre- 
senting the  same  theme  and  consistently  reproducing  the 
peculiarities  of  the  late  archaic  style."  The  temple  in  the 
background,  which  has  Corinthian  columns,  unknown  in 
archaic  Greek  times,  he  calls  a  later  addition. 

The  accuracy  of  this  view  may  be  doubted  ;  for  there  are 
so  many  indications  of  late  art,  even  in  the  figures,  that  it 
seems  difficult  to  credit  them  to  an  archaic  original.  This 
is  especially  true  of  Nike.  The  lines  of  her  right  arm  and 
hand  are  of  a  kind  unknown  to  Greek  sculpture  earlier  than 
the  Hellenistic  times.  They  imply  a  taste  not  dissimilar 
to  that  revealed  in  the  drooping  head  of  Endymion,  Plate 
306,  and  ought  to  be  contrasted  with  the  lines  of  the  arm2 
of  the  athlete  in  Munich,  Plate  i26a.  The  freedom  of 
pose,  moreover,  of  all  the  figures,  especially  that  of  Leto, 
the  goddess  to  the  left,  is  so  great  that  the  relief  is  more 
probably  the  individual  creation  of  a  later  artist  than  a 
copy  of  an  earlier  work.  The  suggestion  of  archaism  in 
the  draperies  is  readily  explained  by  the  prevailing  custom 
in  Hellenistic  times  of  adapting  at  will  and  without  attempt 


1  Baracco  and  Helbig,  La  Collection  Baracco,  Plate  XXX Ilia,  p.  34. 

2  The  arm  of   this  statue  is    restored.     Its    accuracy,   however,   is 
proved  by  other  monuments. 


338  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

at  consistency  whatever  pleased  the  taste  of  the  individual 
artist. 

The  arrangement  of  the  background,  a  temple  behind 
a  wall,  against  which  the  figures  are  relieved,  realizes  in 
the  wall  the  requirements  '  of  sculpture,  namely,  a  flat  back- 
ground, while  it  makes  allowances  in  the  temple  to  the 
growing  preference  of  the  people  for  the  pictorial  element 
even  in  reliefs.  A  similarly  arranged  background  is  seen 
on  Plate  315.  Students  of  Roman  antiquities  readily  rec- 
ognize a  marked  correspondence  between  both  these  re- 
liefs and  one  style  of  wall  decorations 2  in  Pompeii. 

PLATE  310.  Apotheosis  Of  Homer.  Of  marble.  British  Museum, 
London.  Discovered  during  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century 
near  the  Via  Appia  ;  formerly  in  the  Palazzo  Colonna  in  Rome;  since 
1819  in  the  British  Museum.  Restorations:  the  two  upper  corners 
and  the  left  arm  and  bit  of  drapery  of  the  dancing,  or  hurrying  woman 
in  the  right  hand  corner;  the  right  foot  of  Homer  (the  seated  figure  in 
the  lowest  row) ;  the  left  hand  and  roll  of  Memory  (the  second  front 
figure  from  the  right  side  in  the  same  row) ;  and  the  left  hand  and 
saucer  of  Mythos  (the  boy  in  front  of  Homer).  Further,  the  heads  of 
the  following  nine  figures :  lowest  row,  Sophia  (the  lower  of  the  two 
figures  at  the  right  hand  side) ;  second  row  from  the  bottom,  all  except 
Polyhymnia  (the  third  figure  from  the  left) ;  third  row  from  the  bottom, 
the  second,  third,  and  fourth  figures  from  the  left.  F.  W.,  1629; 
Robinson,  589;  and  especially  Reinach,  Gaz.  Arch.,  1887,  pp.  I32ff., 
and  Rev.  Arch.,  1900,  pp.  398ff. 

The  names  of  the  figures  in  the  lowest  row  are  inscribed 
below  them.  They  are  from  left  to  right :  Chronos  (Time) 
and  Oikoumene  (the  inhabitants  of  the  world)  crowning 

1  For  a  discussion  of  these  requirements  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  53ff. 

2  See,  for  instance,  Baumeister,  fig.  525,  or  Mau-Kelsey,  p.  466,  fig. 
263. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  339 

Homer,  who  is  seated  before  them  on  a  throne  supported 
by  two  children,  Ilias  and  Odyssee  ;  Mythos  in  front  of  the 
altar,  and  Historia  behind  it;  Poiesis  (Epic  poetry)  with 
two  torches;  Tragoidia  ;  Komoidia  ;  Physis  (Nature,  prob- 
ably natural  inclination)  ;  a  little  girl,  hardly  visible  in  the 
photograph,  in  front  of  the  group  of  four  women  to  the 
right.  These  women  are  so  crowded  that  it  is  difficult 
to  assign  to  each  her  proper  name.  They  probably  are : 
in  the  back  row,  Arete  (Virtue)  and  Pistis  (Faith)  ;  and 
in  front,  Mneme  (Memory)  and  Sophia  (Wisdom). 

The  figures  of  the  other  strips  are  not  distinguished  by 
inscribed  names.  Zeus  on  top  is  characterized  by  his 
scepter  and  the  eagle  in  front  of  him ;  and  Apollo  in  the 
cave  by  his  long  robe,1  the  lyre  and  the  omphalos,2  against 
which  are  placed  his  bow  and  quiver.  The  statue  in  the 
same  row  with  Apollo  is  probably  intended  to  commemo- 
rate some  poet ;  it  has  been  suggested,  him  who  dedicated 
this  relief.  The  roll  in  his  hand  implies  that  he  is  a  poet, 
and  the  tripod  behind  him  suggests  that  he  has  won  a  vic- 
tory.3 By  representing  him  as  honored  with  a  statue, 
while  the  other  figures  are  portrayed  actually  alive,  the 
artist  has  singled  him  out  as  not  belonging  to  the  action 
of  the  relief. 

The  ten  remaining  figures  are  probably  Mnemosyne,  the 
mother  of  the  Muses,  and  her  nine  daughters.  Mnemo- 
syne *  is  the  tallest  woman  in  immediate  neighborhood  of 
Zeus.  Kalliope  comes  dancing  down  the  hill  near  her. 


1  See  discussion  to  Text  Illustration  25  and  Plate  104.  2See  discus- 
sion to  Plates  66  and  67.  3  For  the  custom  of  erecting  tripods  in  honor 
of  victories,  see  the  discussion  to  Plate  253.  4  These  names  for  the 
several  muses,  in  the  absence  of  prominent  attributes,  are  hypothetical. 


34°  GREEK  AMD  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

On  her  other  side  from  right  to  left  are  Euterpe,  Erato, 
Melpomene,  Klio  ;  while  below,  from  left  to  right,  are 
Terpsichore,  Urania,1  Polyhymnia,  and  in  the  cave  with 
Apollo,  Thalia.  Formerly  this  figure  was  interpreted  as  a 
priestess,  and  Mnemosyne  was  called  one  of  the  Muses  in 
order  to  have  the  full  traditional  number  of  nine  muses. 

The  subject  of  this  relief  is  very  complex,  and  he  who 
would  understand  its  full  meaning  must  be  familiar,  not 
only  with  Greek  traditions,  but  also  with  their  philosophi- 
cal interpretations.  No  artist  earlier  than  the  Alexandrian 
school  of  learning  in  the  Hellenistic  Period  would  have 
attempted  its  representation.  The  sculptor  of  this  relief 
was,  according  to  an  inscription,  immediately  below  Zeus, 
Archelaos,  son  of  Apollonios  of  Priene,  who  lived,  to  judge 
from  the  character  of  the  letters,  about  100  B.  C. 

Judged  not  by  the  story  told,  but  by  the  distribution  of 
lines  and  masses,  the  relief  deserves  high  praise.  The  eye 
notices  everywhere  with  pleasure  deviations  from  mathe- 
matically accurate  lines,  and  a  delightful  variety  in  the 
orderly  balance  of  masses.  The  individual  figures  also  are 
full  of  charm.  To  mention  only  a  few,  Oikoumene  in  the 
lowest  row,  Urania  and  Apollo  in  the  next  row,  and  above 
them  the  graceful  joyous  Kalliope. 

PLATE  311.    Herakles  and  the  Hesperidal.    Of  marble.    Villa 

Albani.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  In  the  sixteenth 
century  it  was  preserved  on  the  Monte  Giordano.  Restorations :  the 
upper  part  of  the  left  third  of  the  slab.  The  only  ancient  portions  of 
the  figure  behind  Herakles  are  a  piece  of  the  left  arm,  and  the  lower 
part  of  the  left  leg,  with  the  drapery  covering  it.  The  nose  of  the 
Hesperide  to  the  right  and  most  of  the  rocky  ground  are  also  modern. 
Helbig,  784. 

1  The  Greek  spelling  of  this  name  is  Ourania. 


THE   HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  341 

The  figures  of  this  relief  remind  one  of  those  of  Attic  grave 
reliefs  of  the  best  period.  Our  collection  contains  no  exact 
replicas,  but  the  Hesperide  to  the  right  suggests  the  woman, 
Plate  354b ;  while  the  combination  of  the  seated  figure  with 
another  figure  standing  before  it  occurs  on  Plates  360  and 
361,  and  of  a  third  figure  behind  the  seated  ones  on  Plates 
368  and  374.  The  landscape  setting,  however,  dates  the  re- 
lief in  the  Hellenistic  Period. 

"The  subject1  is  a  version  of  the  myth  of  the  Hesperides 
especially  current  in  Attica,  according  to  which  Herakles  ob- 
tained the  golden  apples,  not  by  violence  but  with  the  con- 
nivance of  the  daughter  of  Atlas."  The  other  version  of  the 
myth,  according  to  which  Herakles  was  duped  by  Atlas,  who 
had  promised  to  fetch  the  apples  if  Herakles  would  support 
the  universe  for  him,  and  who  afterwards  refused  to  relieve  the 
hero  of  his  burden,  is  represented  on  one  of  the  metopes  from 
Olympia,  Plate  90. 

PLATE  312.    Paris,2  Eros,  Aphrodite,  Helen,  and  Peitho.    Of 

marble.  Museum,  Naples.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown ; 
formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Noja.  Restorations:  the 
face  of  Aphrodite,  and  probably  also  the  forefinger  of  her  left  hand, 
and  the  right  hand  and  wrist  of  Paris.  F.  W.,  1873;  Robinson,  548. 

There  is  not  a  figure  in  this  relief  that  could  not  have  been 
carved  in  the  fourth  century  before  Christ.  The  story-telling 
element,  however,  was  unknown  to  the  sculptors  of  this  period, 
so  that  the  relief  doubtless  owes  its  origin  to  the  Hellenistic 
age.  It  is  one  of  the  so-called  Neo-Attic  reliefs,  in  which  not 
the  invention  of  the  types  of  the  figures,  but  their  grouping 
was  original  with  the  sculptors. 

1  Helbig,  784.  2  The  original  Greek  name  of  the  hero  generally 
known  as  Paris  is  Alexandros.  This  name  is  inscribed  on  the  relief. 


34 2  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  story  is  told  with  much  impressive  simplicity.  Paris, 
proud  and  impatient,  seems  almost  to  be  ready  to  turn  away, 
but  is  restrained  by  Eros,  the  god  of  love,  whose  mother, 
Aphrodite,  in  the  meanwhile  tries  to  persuade  Helen  —  Peitho, 
the  little  spirit  of  persuasion  sits  above  her  on  the  column  — 
to  yield  herself  to  Paris. 

The  grouping  of  the  figures  is  well  done,  while  the  large 
wings  of  Eros  obviate  the  difficulty  of  having  the  heads  on 
different  levels.  The  coaxing  persistence  of  this  little  god  is 
well  portrayed  in  his  attitude,  while  his  easy  unconcern  is  re- 
flected in  the  nonchalant  gesture  '  of  his  right  hand. 

The  grouping  of  the  two  seated  figures  is  especially  skilful, 
so  that  Aphrodite  is  drawn  slightly  in  front  of  Helen  for  the 
sake  of  revealing  more  of  her  than  would  have  been  possible 
otherwise.  The  two  women,  moreover,  are  well  characterized 
in  their  poses ;  Helen  thoughtful  and  almost  shrinking,  Aphro- 
dite persuasive  and  unconcerned  about  possible  consequences. 

An  interesting  point  in  the  figure  of  Paris  is  that  he  wears 
his  sword  strap  under  his  garment.  The  Apollo  of  the  Belve- 
dere, Plate  272,  also  has  a  strap  under  his  garment,  which  is 
even  less  in  place  there  than  here,  because  it  is  a  quiver  strap. 

PLATE  313.  Peasant  Going:  to  Market.  Of  marble.  Glypto- 
thek,  Munich.  Found  in  the  neighborhood  of  Rome  in  1820,  and 
presented  to  the  Glyptothek  in  1858.  Furtwangler,  Catalogue,  455. 

In  this  relief  the  sculptor  has  stepped  far  beyond  his  own 
province,  for  the  whole  design  is  that  of  a  picture.  But  grant- 
ing him  the  right  to  execute  such  subjects  in  marble,  he  has 
done  exceedingly  well,  so  that  one  cannot  but  allow  him  much 
credit  for  his  technical  skill. 

1  Compare  this  with  the  hand  of  Oinomaos,  Plate  84a,  and  contrast 
it  with  the  left  hand  of  the  "  Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  343 

PLATE  314.  Satyr  after  the  Hunt.  Date  and  place  of  discovery 
unknown ;  formerly  in  the  Villa  Albani.  Restorations  :  the  right  arm 
of  the  satyr  with  the  rabbit,  except  the  forelegs  of  the  rabbit ;  a  great 
part  of  the  panther  skin  ;  head,  neck,  and  left  hind  quarter  of  the  pan- 
ther, restored  as  a  dog ;  the  head  and  breast  of  the  rabbit  on  the  col- 
umn; several  folds  of  the  cloak  and  a  piece  near  the  base  of  the  column ; 
part  of  the  trunk  of  the  tree.  Frohner,  281  ;  Reinach  I,  69,  2. 

The  general  remarks  to  Endymion,  Plate  306,  apply  with 
equal  force  to  this  relief,  which,  though  skilful  in  technique, 
lacks  the  refinement  and  delicacy  of  line  of  the  Endymion. 
The  drawing  of  the  feet  of  the  satyr  is  awkward ;  and  the 
picturesque  background  very  disturbing.  The  projecting 
branch  of  the  tree  reminds  one  of  the  branch  on  the  relief  in 
Munich,  Plate  313,  while  the  figure  of  the  satyr  himself  ap- 
pears like  a  poor  copy  of  the  Endymion. 

This  relief  demonstrates  better  than  any  other  the  inad- 
visability  of  introducing  the  pictorial  element  into  sculpture. 

PLATE  315.  Visit  Of  DionysOS.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Naples. 
Discovered,  date  not  published,  in  Capri.  Restorations :  the  heads  of 
the  last  two  satyrs  to  the  right,  and  the  upper  right  hand  corner  of  the 
block.  Robinson,  534;  Hauser,  Die  neu-attischen  Reliefs,  p.  191,  No. 
4 ;  Schreiber,  Hellenistischc  Relief bilder,  No.  39. 

The  subject  of  this  relief  is  of  frequent  occurence  in  extant 
monuments.1  Dionysos,  heavy  with  wine  and  supported  by  a 
little  satyr,  appears  as  guest  of  a  man,  who,  together  with  a 
woman,  is  reclining  at  his  feet.  The  god's  gay  retinue  is  fol- 
lowing him.  The  entire  composition  is  relieved  against  a 
wall,  over  the  top  of  which  the  roofs  of  other  buildings  appear. 
In  this  respect  the  background  of  the  Naples  relief  is  like  that 
of  the  relief  in  the  Villa  Albani,  Plate  309,  from  which  it  differs 

1  F.  W.,  1843,  ^44,  and  2149. 


344  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

only  by  the  curtain  hung  in  front  of  the  wall  to  deprive  it  of 
its  monotony.  A  similar  curtain,  but  less  characteristically 
treated,  is  seen  in  the  lowest  row  of  the  Apotheosis  of  Homer, 
Plate  310. 

The  general  remarks  to  the  preceding  plates  refer  also  to 
this  relief.  The  pleasing  arrangement  of  figures,  however,  and 
the  good  drawing  make  of  it  one  of  the  best  of  the  Hellen- 
istic Period. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE   SCULPTURE.         345 


PART  SEVEN. 


Graeco-Roman,    Eclectic   and    Imitative   Sculpture. 

Toward  the  end  of  Greek  sculpture  proper  and  about  the 
time  when  it  was  merged  with  Roman  art,  and  even  later,  a 
number  of  works  were  created  which  it  is  difficult  to  classify. 
They  are,  in  the  first  place,  not  Greek,  that  is  to  say,  not  per- 
meated with  the  spirit  of  art  that  through  centuries  had  put  its 
own  peculiar  stamp  on  the  creations  of  the  Hellenes.1  They 
are,  on  the  other  hand,  not  Roman,  for  they  treat  of  subjects 
which  were  of  no  great  interest  to  the  Roman  national  mind. 
The  subjects,  indeed,  are  Greek,  but  they  are  treated  in  the 
eclectic  or  imitative  manner  characteristic  of  outsiders.  In 
many  instances  the  artists  show  no  more  feeling  for  what  is 
characteristically  Greek  than  Thorvvaldsen  or  Canova  did  early 
in  the  nineteenth  century.  Whether  the  general  assumption 
that  most  of  them  were  of  Greek  extraction  is  true  cannot  be 
determined.  Since,  however,  the  historic  sculpture  of  the 
Roman  empire  found  Roman  artists  ready  to  execute  its 
themes,  many  may  have  been  Roman. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  statues  grouped  together  in  this  class 
are  of  two  kinds.  They  are,  in  the  first  place,  imitative  of  a 
certain  definite  period,  generally  the  archaic,  of  which  the 
forms  are  broadly  suggested,  while  the  spirit  is  not  infrequently 
lost.  It  is  as  if  a  western  artist  attempted  to  paint  a  Japanese 

'The  Greeks  called  themselves  Hellenes. 


346  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

picture.  The  second  class  is  not  confined  to  one  period,  but 
combines  the  forms  of  several  into  a  new  and  often  pleasing 
whole.  It  selects  what  it  likes  from  everywhere  ;  it  is  eclectic. 
The  first  reveals  the  copyist,  the  second  the  adapter. 

The  ideas  of  both  these  schools  had  been  seen  actively  at 
work  during  the  whole  of  the  Hellenistic  Period,  but  they  were 
kept  in  abeyance  by  a  strong  admixture  of  creative  individu- 
ality, and,  what  is  more,  by  a  well-defined  feeling  for  the  spirit 
of  Greek  art.  When  these  two  qualities  began  to  be  subordi- 
nated or  even  entirely  lacking,  the  copyist *  and  the  adapter 
appeared. 

To-day  we  again  live  in  an  age  when  the  existence  of  the 
spirit  of  art  is  sometimes  denied,  and  nothing  but  the  form  is 
studied.  It  is,  therefore,  extremely  difficult  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment among  modern  scholars  as  to  extant  ancient  works 2  and 
to  affirm  that  this  man  did  and  this  man  did  not  understand 
the  spirit  of  the  art  which  he  copied  or  adapted.  Under  these 
circumstances,  and  in  view  of  the  services  which  this  Hand- 
book and  collection  are  intended  to  render,  it  has  seemed  wise 
to  include  in  this  group  only  3  those  works  on  which  there  is  a 
concensus  of  opinion.  The  most  careful  students,  however, 


1  The  term,"  copyist "  is  used  here  in  a  different  sense  from  the  one 
that  applies  to  those  men  who  made  exact  replicas  of  statues  just  as 
we  to-day  take  casts  of  them. 

2  It  is  especially  difficult  because  the  marble  replicas  taking  the  place 
of  the  modern  casts,  often  lost  the  spirit  of  the  statues  and  repro- 
duced only  their  forms,  so  that  there  is  hardly  any  difference  between 
such  a  replica  and  the  works  here  discussed. 

'  3An  exception  has  been  made  in  the  case  of  the  two  statues  of 
women  in  Boston,  Plates  319  and  320,  which  are  here  published  for  the 
first  time.  Most  writers  of  ancient  art,  if  they  had  known  of  these 
statues,  and  had  included  them  in  their  books,  would  probably  have 
assigned  them  to  the  Hellenistic  Period. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE.         347 

will  be  convinced  of  the  advisability  of  detaching  several  works 
from  the  preceding  periods  and  of  adding  them  here. 

PLATE  316.  Archaistic  Pallas  Athena.  Of  marble.  Museum, 
Naples.  Discovered  in  Herculaneum.  Hair  and  ornaments  were  gilt 
when  the  statue  was  found.  New  Catalogue  by  Domenico  Monaco, 
1886,  translated  by  E.  N.  Rolfe,  No.  6007,  under  the  heading,  Corridor 
of  Masterpieces  ;  Reinach  I,  227,  i. 

The  treatment  of  the  folds  of  this  Athena  reminds  one  of 
the  figures  from  the  Akropolis,  Plates  2$ff.,  and  of  the  Athena 
of  Aigina,  Plate  83,  while  her  attitude  is  similar  to  that  of  the 
bronze  statuette,  Plate  35.  The  entire  statue  bears  witness  to 
the  studied  endeavor  of  the  artist  to  work  in  an  early  style,  the 
halting  skill  of  which  he  had  outgrown,  although  he  was  unable 
to  reproduce  its  spirit  of  life. 

Works  of  this  kind  are  commonly  called  archaistic  in  con- 
trast to  the  genuine  archaic.  The  term  is  broad  and  is  applied 
by  some  scholars  to  all  attempts  of  artists  to  work  in  a  less 
advanced  style  than  is  natural  to  them.  In  a  narrower  sense 
of  the  word  it  refers  to  those  works  which  were  carved  at  the 
end  of  the  Hellenistic  age,  or  later,  in  imitation  of  statues  of 
the  archaic  period. 

Many  of  the  archaistic  works  show  much  external  refine- 
ment, and  since  their  finish  is  often  exceedingly  delicate,  many 
people,  even  those  who  prefer  genuine  expression  to  laborious 
copying,  cannot  help  admiring  them. 

PLATE  31  r.  "Karyatid."  Of  marble.  Glyptothek  Ny  Carls- 
berg,  Copenhagen.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published.  Form- 
erly in  the  Giustiniani  collection,  Rome.  Restorations :  the  nose, 
mouth  and  chin,  both  lower  arms,  and  the  left  breast.  Glyptothek 
Catalogue,  248. 

The  style  of  this  figure  is  based  on  that  of  the  Maidens 


348  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  the  Erechtheion.  The  statue  may,  therefore,  be  said  to  hold 
an  intermediary  place  between  one  of  the  originals,  Plate  166, 
and  the  slavish  copy  of  it,  Plate  167.  Unlike  both,  it  was  not 
intended  to  serve  as  an  architectural  support,  as  is  shown  by 
the  treatment  of  the  hair,  and  also  by  the  absence  of  heavy 
sandals.  Treading  the  ground  with  bare  feet,  this  girl  is 
more  readily  imagined  as  walking. 

The  important  features  of  her  face  are  restored,  so  that  it  is 
not  possible  to  know  whether  a  portrait  statue  was  intended  or 
not.  But  whatever  the  artist's  intention  was,  it  is  clear  that 
his  genius  was  imitative  rather  than  creative.  It  is  this  fact 
which  places  his  statue  in  this  group  and  not  by  the  side  of 
the  Erechtheion  figure,  Plate  166. 

PLATE  318.  The  "  Esquiline  Venus."  Of  marble.  Palazzo  del 
Conservator!,  Rome.  Discovered  in  the  ruins  of  a  villa  on  the  Esqui- 
line Hill  in  Rome  in  1874.  Restorations :  the  tip  of  the  nose.  Helbig, 
566;  Robinson,  166;  Reinach  II,  364,  2. 

Unless  the  characteristics  of  the  statues  grouped  together 
here  as  a  class  are  understood,  the  "  Esquiline  Venus  "  is  an 
anomaly.  And  so  she  is  called  by  Robinson  who  says,  "  The 
Esquiline  Venus  is  an  anomalous  work,  for  while  the  body  is 
modelled  with  a  voluptuousness  that  almost  oversteps  the  line 
dividing  the  nude  from  the  naked,  the  head  is  treated  with 
archaic  severity,  in  the  style  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury." These  correct  observations  can  be  reconciled  only  on 
the  assumption  that  in  this  statue  we  have  a  work  of  the 
eclectic  school  of  sculpture.  The  artist  may  have  borrowed 
his  type  from  the  fifth  century,  and  have  introduced  of  his 
own  volition  the  sensuous  modelling  of  the  nude  body. 

If  this  assumption  is  right,  then  the  original  was  not  an 
Aphrodite,  for  this  goddess  was.  not  represented  nude  in  that 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE.         349 

period.1  It  has,  therefore,  been  suggested,  on  the  strength  of 
a  vase  painting 2  that  the  artist  was  influenced  by  an  Attic 
painting  of  Atalanta  preparing  for  her  race  with  Hippomenes. 
But  if  this  is  the  case,  then  again  the  artist  has  introduced  a 
foreign  element;  the  body  of  this  woman  is  not  that  of  a 
girl  in  training,3  as  Atalanta  was. 

What  the  artist  called  his  statue  we  do  not  know,  perhaps 
he  was  satisfied  with  calling  her  "  a  nude  woman."  Judged 
as  such,  the  statue  is  interesting.  The  proportions  are  not 
Greek,  but  the  girl  is  nevertheless  beautiful.  It  is  one  of  the 
best  instances  of  the  eclectic  school  of  sculpture. 

PLATE  319.  Statue  of  a  Seated  Woman.  Of  marble.  Mu- 
seum, Boston.  Discovered  in  1900  (or  in  1899)  in  Vasciano  in  Umbria. 
Report  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Museum,  Boston  (Robinson),  1903, 
p.  58,  No.  n;  Amelung,  Rom.  Mtttk.,  1901,  p.  29.  For  a  similar 
statue  see  Michaelis,  Ancient  Marbles,  p.  694,  No,  117;  Reinach  I, 
257,  2. 

The  workmanship  of  this  statue,  as  Robinson  has  pointed 
out,  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  that  of  the  age  of  Augustus, 
while  on  the  other  hand  the  subject  distinguishes  it  from  those 
works  which  in  this  collection  have  been  grouped  together  as 
Roman  National,  Part  Eight.  The  finish  of  the  statue  is  very 
pleasing,  especially  for  a  casual  view,  but  it  combines  together 
with  bits  of  delicacy  and  refinement,  an  element  of  such 
thoughtless  arrangement  of  the  drapery,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  think  highly  of  the  artistic  powers  of  its  sculptor.  He  had 
skill,  no  doubt,  but  lacked  the  temper  of  quiet  contemplation, 
without  which  even  the  most  skilled  are  not  artists  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word. 

The  figure  is  seated,  but  below  and  at  her  left  side  her 

1  For  Aphrodite  statues  of  the  fourth  century  see  Plates  103  and 
108.  2See  picture  in  Helbig,  p.  424.  3  For  such  a  body  see  Plate  73. 


35°  GREEK:  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

drapery  is  carved  as  if  it  were  swept  by  the  winds.  This  gives 
a  feeling  of  restlessness  l  to  the  statue,  painfully  conspicuous 
to  all  who  have  become  familiar  with  the  best  Greek  works. 
The  folds  on  the  upper  part  of  the  figure  are  almost  obtrusively 
skilful,  the  sharp  line  running  from  the  left  breast  down  to  the 
center  of  the  waist  line  being  the  acme  of  studied  mastery 
over  the  material.2  The  same  is  true  of  the  two  small  bulging 
folds  below  the  left  breast  immediately  over  the  himation. 

The  piece  of  marble  of  which  this  figure  is  carved  is  very 
beautiful,  of  a  mellow  light  yellow  color,  so  that  it  is  justly 
admired.  Historically  the  statue  belongs  to  the  Grseco-Roman 
eclectic  and  imitative  sculptor.  The  fluttering  drapery  3  near 
the  left  leg  is  probably  copied  from  a  statue,  where  it  was  no 
doubt  in  place,  while  the  transparent  garment  on  the  upper 
part  of  the  body,  which  ill  agrees  with  the  motive  of  the  figure 
wearing  two  garments,  is  taken  from  another  statue,  and  the 
disposition  of  the  limbs  and  the  general  pose  of  the  figure 
from  still  another. 

PLATE  320.  Statue  Of  Woman.  Of  marble.  Museum,  Boston. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  not  published.  Reports  of  the  Trustees 
of  the  Museum,  1901,  p.  35  (Robinson). 

This  statue  is  designed  for  only  one  view,  the  one  seen  in 
the  photograph.  From  all  other  points  of  view,  especially 
those  from  its  left  side,  the  statue  is  inharmonious  in  composi- 
tion and  unsatisfactory  in  modelling.  Its  back  is  perfectly  flat. 
Copyists  and  adapters  often  work  in  this  fashion.  The  folds 
of  the  drapery  are  extremely  studied  in  effect  and  fail  to 

1  Contrast  this  with  the  seated  figure,  Plate  434.  2  Such  details  do 
not  appear  well  in  a  photograph.  3  For  such  folds  see  Amelung's 
article,  referred  to  above.  The  writer  cannot  accept  Amelung's  con- 
clusion that  the  statues  exhibiting  them  date  late  in  the  fifth  century. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE.        351 

please.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  folds  enveloping  the 
right  arm,  and  the  concentric  and  therefore  monotonous  folds 
from  the  right  breast  down  to  the  left  thigh.  The  more  this 
part  of  the  drapery  is  noticed,  the  less  real  is  its  appearance, 
for  it  is  out  of  keeping  with  the  idea  of  an  ample  outer  shawl 
(Jiimatiori)  pulled  over  an  under  chiton,  both  of  which  are 
heavy  enough  to  fall  in  thick  folds  about  the  neck.  Such  a 
mixture  of  motives  is  again  characteristic  of  the  copyist. 

Unique  in  ancient  sculpture  is  the  position  of  the  right  arm 
of  the  figure  and  the  attention  paid  to  the  wrist  action  of  the 
right  hand.  Judging  by  the  wealth  of  extant  statues  with  arms 
hanging  loose  at  the  sides,  the  Greeks  never  perceived  the 
peculiar  charm  of  the  curve  of  the  wrist.1  Two  of  the  best 
statues  to  illustrate  this  point  are  the  "  Idolino,"  Plate  123, 
and  the  "Apollo,"  Plate  127.  The  sculptors 2  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance  are  supposed  to  have  been  the  first  to  pay  atten- 
tion to  the  individuality  of  the  action  of  the  wrist.  Seeing  it 
expressed,  therefore,  in  the  statue  in  Boston,  one  is  subject  to 
doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  statue.  Forgers  to-day  are 
very  skilful.  They  may  find  it  difficult  to  imitate  masterpieces 
of  the  great  artists,  but  they  are  well  able  to  imitate  the  style 
of  the  inconsistent  later  copyists  or  adapters.  The  only  way  of 
successfully  combating  such  doubts  is  to  prove  that  the  statue 
is  genuine.  This,  however,  cannot  be  done  unless  the  place 
and  date  of  discovery  of  the  statue  are  published. 

1  In  many  grave  reliefs  gestures  unlike  those  of  the  best  statues  are 
seen,  and  consequently  also  many  pronounced  bends  of  the  hand  at  the 
wrist.     Nowhere,  however,  is  there  an  indication   of  special  delight 
taken  in  beautiful  wrist-actions. 

2  Notably  Donatello  and  Michelangelo. 


3S2  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


The  So-called  School  of  Pasiteles. 

PLATE  321.  Statue  Of  a  Youth  by  Stephanos.  Of  marble.  Villa 
Albani,  Rome.  Discovered  in  Rome  in  1769.  Restorations:  the 
upper  part  of  the  skull,  part  of  the  fillet,  the  curls  on  the  forehead,  the 
end  of  the  nose,  the  right  arm,  the  front  of  the  left  forearm,  the  front 
of  the  right  foot,  the  toes  of  the  left  foot  except  the  little  toe,  and  a 
large  part  of  the  plinth.  Helbig,  744,  with  bibliography;  F.  W.,  225; 
Reinach  II,  588,  9.  See  also  Charles  Waldstein,  /.  H.  S.,  XXIV, 
1904,  pp.  lagff.  For  the  copy  of  this  statue  in  the  group  of  "Orestes 
and  Elektra,"  see  the  Naples  copy,  Reinach  I,  506,  4  ;  for  the  other 
copy  see  Plate  323.  The  inscription  reads  :  "  Stephanos,  pupil  of 
Pasiteles,  made  (this  statue)." 

PLATE  322.  "  Orestes  and  Elektra."  Group  by  Menelaos.  Of 
marble.  Terme,  formerly  Villa  Ludovisi,  Rome.  Date  and  place  of 
discovery  unknown.  The  group  was  in  the  Villa  Ludovisi  as  early  as 
1623.  Restorations:  on  "Orestes,"  the  right  arm  from  above  the 
elbow,  several  fingers  of  the  left  hand,  the  front  half  of  the  right  foot, 
the  tip  of  the  nose,  and  a  small  piece  in  the  top  of  the  head ;  on 
"Elektra,"  the  front  half  of  the  top  of  the  head,  the  tip  of  the  nose, 
the  left  arm  below  the  sleeve,  half  of  the  thumb,  the  forefinger  and 
little  finger  of  the  right  hand,  and  various  minor  parts.  Helbig,  887  ; 
F.  W.,  1560;  Robinson,  577;  and  especially  Kekule,  Gruppe  des 
Kilnsllers  Menelaos,  Reinach  I,  506,  6.  The  inscription  reads  :  "  Mene- 
laos, pupil  of  Stephanos,  made  (this  group)." 

PLATE  323.  "  Orestes  and  Pylades."  Of  marble.  Louvre,  Paris. 
Put  together  of  a  great  many  fragments.  Reinach  I,  161,  2. 

PLATE  324.  The  Ildefonso  Group.  Of  marble.  Prado,  Madrid. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Formerly  in  Villa  Ludovisi  in 
Rome,  later  in  the  possession  of  Queen  Christine  of  Sweden,  whence  it 
was  removed  to  the  castle  Ildefonso  in  Spain.  While  in  this  castle  the 
group  became  generally  known.  It  is  now  in  the  Prado  Museum  in 
Madrid.  Restorations  :  on  the  youth  with  the  torch,  both  arms,  parts 
of  the  left  lower  leg  and  fragments  of  the  wreath ;  on  the  other  youth, 
the  head  (which  is  antique,  but  does  not  belong  to  the  figure),1  the  right 

1  It  is  one  of  the  many  extant  replicas  of  heads  of  Antinoos. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE.         353 

arm  and  large  parts  of  the  left  arm;  also  several  pieces  of  the  altar 
with  the  flame  and  the  little  draped  figure.  F.  W.,  1665;  Baumeister, 
p.  1730;  Reinach  I,  486,  6. 

At  a  time  when  every  artist  independently  felt  at  liberty  to 
copy  the  achievements  of  his  predecessors,  and  when  many  of 
the  works  copied  belonged  to  a  forgotten  age,  so  that  the  new 
productions  had  the  double  charm  of  veiled  antiquity  and 
implied  originality,  no  definite  school  of  sculpture  could  exist. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  the  search  through  ancient 
literature  has  yielded,  with  one  exception,  only  detached  names 
of  artists.  This  one  exception  is  the  school  of  Pasiteles,  a 
school  that  by  names  can  be  traced  through  three  generations. 
Of  Pasiteles  himself  no  works  are  extant,  but  one  work  each  is 
preserved  by  his  pupil  Stephanos,  Plate  321,  and  by  Menelaos, 
the  pupil  of  the  latter,  Plate  322.  To  these  two  works  others 
have  been  added  because  they  resemble  them,  and  all  are 
called  works  of  the  school  of  Pasiteles. 

The  title,  "  School  of  Pasiteles,"  is  rather  ambitious ;  the 
more  so  since  the  particular  statues  said  to  have  emanated 
from  it  are  by  no  means  original  creations.  This  is  well  seen 
in  the  case  of  one  of  them,  Plate  321,  when  it  is  compared 
with  the  Apollo  from  Pompeii,  Plate  69.  To  claim  the  Apollo 
statue  also  for  Pasiteles  and  his  followers,  as  has  been  done, 
does  not  help  matters,  because  there  are  too  many  undoubted 
works  '  of  the  Transitional  Period  to  show  whence  the  later 
artists  borrowed  their  type. 

The  statue  by  Stephanos,  Plate  321,  is  nevertheless  very 
pleasing.  It  possesses  the  charm  of  modesty,  inherent  in  the 
halting  skill  of  the  Transitional  Period,  and  displays  to  its  best 
advantage  the  technique  of  Stephanos.  The  "  simple  model- 

1  See  Plates  66ff. 


334  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

ling  of  the  body "  is  beautiful ;  while  the  absence  of  over 
accentuation  of  the  muscular  development  proved  no  doubt 
gratifying  to  people  satiated  with  looking  at  exaggerations  of 
anatomically  accurate  bodies. 

A  most  interesting  comparison  is  made  between  the  Stepha- 
nos statue  and  the  Athlete,  Plate  66.  The  broad  shoulders  of 
the  latter  designated  him  as  a  boxer.  They  are  copied  in  the 
later  statue  without  serving  a  definite  purpose  beyond  perhaps 
offering  a  pleasing  view.  The  rhythm  of  the  lines  of  the  body 
is  changed,  chest  and  abdomen  are  better  modelled,  and  the 
proportions  of  the  limbs  are  lengthened.  The  head  also  has 
been  refined ;  the  hair  is  parted  '  and  the  fillet  pushed  further 
down.  All  these  changes,  the  writer  believes,  have  combined 
to  make  of  the  self-made  athlete  and  victor  a  well-groomed 
aristocrat. 

The  correspondence  between  the  youth  by  Stephanos  and 
one  of  the  figures  of  the  group  in  the  Louvre,  Plate  323,  is  so 
close  that  the  two  statues  may  be  looked  upon  as  replicas  of 
the  same  original.  This  original,  some  scholars  believe,  was 
made  by  Pasiteles.  The  Stephanos  inscription,  therefore,  they 
consider  as  of  the  same  kind  as  that  of  Antiochos,  Plate  ppb, 
recording  merely  the  name  of  the  copyist.  Others,  however, 
say  Stephanos  signed  as  maker  and  not  as  copyist.  Certainty 
on  this  point  is  impossible. 

The  general  proportions  of  the  Louvre  "  Orestes  and  Pyl- 
ades"  and  the  underlying  idea  of  grouping  two  youths  together 
occur  again  in  the  much  disputed  composition,  called  the 
Ildefonso  group,  Plate  324,  which,  therefore,  has  been  properly 
brought  in  connection  with  them.  The  more  familiar  one  is 
with  Greek  sculpture,  the  less  Greek  this  group  appears.  The 
Greeks  liked  contrasts ;  the  nude  and  the  drapery,  man  and 

'The  hair  in  this  statue,  to  be  sure,  is  restored. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE.        355 

woman,  old  age  and  youth.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  would 
ever  have  occurred  to  them  to  put  like  and  like  together  in 
the  endeavor  to  impress  the  spectator  by  their  combined 
appeal.  In  their  poses,  moreover,  both  youths  in  Madrid 
repeat  earlier  types,  —  the  one  near  the  little  goddess,  the 
Doryphoros,  Plate  113,  of  the  fifth  century;  the  other  the 
"Apollo  Sauroktonos,"  Plate  185,  of  the  fourth  century;  while 
in  the  little  idol1  a  still  older  type  —  see  Plates  2$K,  —  is 
preserved.  The  grouping  together  of  such  heterogenous  types 
and  the  introduction  of  the  necessary  changes,  as,  for  instance, 
the  different  turn  of  the  head  of  the  figure  based  on  the  Dory- 
phoros, unmistakably  prove  that  the  Ildefonso  group  is  cor- 
rectly classed  with  works  of  the  Grseco-Roman  eclectic  and 
imitative  sculpture.  The  characteristics  of  the  so-called  Pas- 
iteles  school  are  too  indistinct  to  extend  with  certainty  also  to 
the  Ildefonso  group. 

The  subject  of  this  group  is  a  serious  bone  of  contention. 
Formerly  when  the  Antinoos  head,  restored  on  one  of  the 
figures,  was  believed  to  be  genuine,  the  group  was  brought  in 
connection  with  one  of  the  many  stories  told  of  this  favorite2 
of  Hadrian.  Now  it  is  generally  believed  to  have  some  bear- 
ing on  the  Thanatos  3  myth.  The  greatest  difficulty  to  the 
interpretation  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  cannot  be  determined 
whether  the  youth  is  lighting  his  torch  from  the  fire  of  the 
altar  4  or  trying  to  extinguish  it  on  the  altar.5  In  the  one  case 
he  may  be  a  mourner  at  a  funeral,  ready  with  averted  face 
to  ignite  the  funeral  pyre ; 6  in  the  other  case  he  may  be 
Thanatos,  the  spirit  of  Death.  Wolters  compares  him  with  the 


1  For  a  similar  idol  see  Plate  205.  2  See  below  Plates  4i5ff.  3  Than- 
atos is  the  spirit  of  death.  4  This  is  the  interpretation  of  Baumeister, 
p.  1730.  s  This  is  the  interpretation  of  Wolters,  F.  W.,  1665.  6  Com- 
pare Virgil's  ALneid  VI,  224,  aversi  tenuere  faccm. 


356  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE, 

Eros  Centocelle,  Plate  189,  who  also  probably  held  an  inverted 
torch  in  his  hand.  Whatever  subject  the  artist  thought  of 
portraying,  he  has  not  made  his  meaning  clear.  Nor  could 
this  be  otherwise ;  for  the  man  who  copies  his  types,  and 
whose  original  part  in  the  work  consists  only  in  adapting  them 
to  his  own  conception,  will  invariably  fail  to  imbue  them 
sufficiently  with  his  idea  to  have  them  easily  understood. 

The  same  is  true  also  of  the  so-called  "  Orestes  and 
Elektra"  by  Menelaos  in  Rome,  Plate  322,  where  it  is  impos- 
sible to  state  whether  the  youth  is  arriving  or  preparing  to 
leave,  receiving  admonition,  or  imparting  important  informa- 
tion. A  great  many  interpretations,  therefore,  have  been 
offered ;  none,  however,  to  universal  or  even  partial  satisfac- 
tion. Only  the  suggestion  of  Wolters,1  that  no  definite  mo- 
ment is  intended  to  be  portrayed,  deserves  attention.  He  be- 
lieves that  the  group  may  have  served  as  a  grave  monument, 
designed  to  convey  the  affection  between  the  older-  woman 
and  the  younger  man,  one  of  whom  had  died. 

The  type  of  the  woman  is  not  unlike  —  although  less  beau- 
tiful—  than  that  of  the  matron,  Plate  208,  while  the  youth 
partakes  of  the  characteristics  of  numberless  male  standing 
figures  extant  from  Roman  times.  He  appears  younger  than 
the  woman  only  because  he  is  smaller.  Two  independent 
figures,  therefore,  are  grouped  together,  so  that  it  is  not  as- 
tonishing that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  their  relationship. 

Judged  as  monumental  works,  both  groups  in  Rome  and  in 
Madrid  are  very  satisfactory.  The  artists  have  shown  fine 
feeling  for  composition  and  delicacy  of  temper.  The  maker 
of  the  Ildefonso  group  is  unknown ;  the  other  has  signed 
himself  proudly  "  the  pupil  of  Stephanos."  Stephanos,  who 
himself  boasted  of  his  connection  with  Pasiteles,  may  have 

1  F.  W.,  1,560. 


ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE   SCULPTURE.        357 

inherited  and  passed  on  to  his  successor  some  of  the  fame  of 
his  master.  The  grounds  on  which  Pasiteles  was  praised  are 
mentioned  by  Pliny,1  who  says  that  he  made  many  works,  of 
which,  however,  only  few  were  known  even  by  name  in  his 
time  (about  one  hundred  years  later),  but  that  he  had  written 
a  remarkable  work  in  five  volumes  on  the  masterpieces  of  the 
world,  to  which  Pliny  had  had  frequent  occasion  to  refer. 
He  made  an  exact  model  of  every  statue  he  intended  to  carve 
or  to  cast,  and  supplemented  his  theoretical  studies  with  mod- 
elling from  life.2 

All  this  implies  familiarity  with,  and  admiration  for,  the 
works  of  past  ages,  coupled  with  painstaking  execution.  It 
makes  no  mention  of  originality  or  even  individual  import- 
ance. Neither  Stephanos  nor  Menelaos  improved  on  Pasiteles. 
Both  were  theorists  and  men  of  skill.  Their  statues  are  pleas- 
ant to  look  at,  but  they  lack  that  intensity  of  feeling  which 
,  marks  the  genuine  Greek  work  of  art. 


1  See  Overbeck,  S.  Q.,  2262ff.  2This  is  the  inference  from  the  story 
told  by  Pliny,  according  to  which  Pasiteles  once  came  near  losing  his 
life  when  he  made  models  of  wild  animals  imported  from  Africa. 


358  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART    EIGHT. 


Etruscan  and  Roman  National  Art. 

ETRUSCAN  ART. 

The  most  assiduous  investigations  of  the  last  century  have 
not  been  able  to  untangle  the  mystery  that  attaches  to  every- 
thing Etruscan.  The  people,  their  speech,  their  government 
and  their  art  are  alike  beyond  the  scope  of  our  knowledge. 
The  few  gleams  of  light  that  scattered  discoveries  have  shed 
on  this  dark  page  of  history  have  made  us  only  the  more 
anxious  to  read  it,  for  they  have  proved  that  Etruscan  anti- 
quities deserve  serious  attention. 

Etruscan  art,  it  seems,  was  the  prose  of  ancient  art  life,  just 
as  Greek  art  was  its  poetry.  Soberness  of  thought,  in  contrast 
to  divine  inspiration,  marks  the  few  extant  remains  of  Etruria. 
This  is  best  seen  in  the  clay  sarcophagus  '  from  Caere  in  the 
British  Museum.  The  bronze  Chimaera,  Plate  3253,  stands 
under  Greek  influence,  while  the  so-called  Etruscan  Minerva, 
Plate  330,  is  probably  wholly  Greek.  The  "  Etruscan  Orator," 
Plate  327,  treats  a  subject  familiar  to  Roman  art,  but  is  so 
sober  in  execution  that  it  is  difficult  to  reach  a  definite  con- 
clusion concerning  it. 


1  For  a  picture  of  this  sarcophagus,  see  Knackfuss-Zimmermann   I, 
p.  281,  fig.  223. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       359 


ROMAN  ART. 

The  beginnings  of  Roman  art  are  as  obscure  as  those  of 
Etruscan  art.  For  years  Roman  sculpture  has  been  considered 
to  be  "  nothing  but  the  last  chapter  of  the  long  history  of 
Greek  art  —  in  fact,  a  sort  of  decadent  anti-climax."  Re- 
cently the  injustice  of  this  view  has  begun  to  dawn  upon  those 
who  have  taken  pains  to  study  this  art. 

The  Romans  were  a  practical  people,  and  not  only  skilful  in 
solving  difficult  problems  on  whatever  field,  but  also  glad  to 
exercise  their  ingenuity  in  so  doing.  The  art  of  architecture 
fared  best  at  their  hands,  and  although  the  Greeks  were  the 
inventors  of  some  of  the  most  beautiful  decorative  schemes, 
architecture  as  such  and  its  various  architectural  problems 
were  first  solved  by  the  Romans.  The  grandeur  of  some  of 
their  buildings  is  impressive,  not  only  because  these  buildings 
are  eminently  well  adapted  to  the  needs  which  they  are  de- 
signed to  meet,  but  also  because  their  masses  are  so  well  dis- 
tributed that  they  please  the  eye. 

A  people  that  craved  beauty  almost  as  much  as  service- 
ability in  its  monumental  buildings,  cannot  be  stigmatized  as 
void  of  the  sense  of  beauty  because  it  created  little  in  the  art 
of  sculpture.  Good  sculpture  is  not  to  be  had  for  the  asking. 
The  very  simplicity  of  its  spirit  shrinks  from  the  contact  with 
those  whose  life  is  swayed  by  a  multitude  of  complex  emo- 
tions. Such  people  may  have  skill,  but  they  are  seldom,  if 
ever,  privileged  to  feel  the  force  of  great  and  noble  ideas  such 
as  add  worth  to  a  piece  of  carved  marble  or  cast  bronze. 

Sculpture,  moreover,  in  Roman  times  had  to  serve  an 
ulterior  end,  that  of  glorification.  The  subject  was  given  and 
the  expression  of  individual  ideas  forbidden.  Those  Romans 
—  and  there  were  many  —  whose  culture  enabled  them  to 


360  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

perceive  ideas  that  are  best  conveyed  by  bodily  representation, 
surrounded  themselves  with  Greek  statues,  originals  if  they  could 
procure  them,  or  copies,  of  which  there  was  a  large  supply. 

The  glorification  of  the  emperors  in  reliefs  or  statues  kept 
the  artists  busy  ;  for  such  monuments  were  erected  not  only  in 
Rome,  but  in  many  other  places  of  the  extensive  empire.  The 
reliefs  I  were  generally  designed  to  tell  graphically  some  event 
of  importance.  In  many  cases  they  were  leaves  of  history 
written  in  pictures.  They  were  by  their  very  nature  not 
intended  to  convey  ideas  which  defy  words,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  illustrate  accounts  which  had  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth  until  their  every  detail  had  become  known  to  every 
one.  It  was,  therefore,  impossible  for  the  artists  to  make 
their  selections ;  the  spectators  would  look  for  this  or  that 
incident  in  their  combinations,  however  incapable  of  artistic 
treatment  it  might  be. 

If  these  limitations  are  understood  and  taken  for  granted, 
the  way  is  clear  for  the  admiration  of  those  other  qualities 
which  distinguish  many  of  the  Roman  reliefs  as  the  works  of 
thoughtful  men.  The  arrangement  of  the  figures  and  the  dis- 
tribution of  masses  is  often  exceedingly  fine.  The  incidents 
are  clearly  and  vigorously  told,  the  whole  representation  is 
straightforward,  rarely  open  to  misunderstandings,  and  gener- 
ally refined  in  diction.  Greek  historical  reliefs,  the  frieze  of 
the  Athene-Nike  temple  in  Athens  for  instance,  Plate  169, 
please  the  lover  of  beauty,  but  are  of  no  help  to  the  student  of 
history.  Roman  reliefs  constitute  some  of  the  chief  sources 
of  our  knowledge  of  Roman  events. 

The  portraits  of  the  emperors  and  other  famous  men  are  the 
second  class  of  sculpture  in  which  the  Romans  did  original 

1  An  excellent  treatise  of  Roman  reliefs  is  by  Edmund  Courbaud, 
Le  Bus-Relief  domain,  Representations  Historiques,  Paris,  1899. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       361 

work.  And  this  class  is  by  far  the  most  important.  The 
artists  were  fortunate  in  their  subjects,  for  never  has  a  country 
boasted  of  such  an  array  of  powerful  men,  each  one  supreme 
by  his  own  individuality,  as  Rome.  At  first  these  men  were 
ruled  by  virtue,  and  later  by  vice  or  a  perplexing  mixture  of 
both,  but  at  all  times  they  were  men  of  passion.  The  qujet 
gamut  of  respectable  emotions  had  no  attraction  for  them. 

The  features  of  the  Romans  were  pronounced,  every  head 
being  almost  a  caricature ;  for  most  of  them  lacked  the  noble 
blending  of  the  Greek  type.  While  this,  it  is  true,  made  it 
easy  to  carve  good  likenesses,  it  offered  the  temptation  to 
exaggerate.  That  the  sculptors  rarely  yielded  to  it  reveals 
them  as  artists  of  considerable  worth.  In  portraiture,  in  fact, 
they  have  rarely  been  surpassed.  They  not  only  perpetuated 
the  outward  appearance,  but  also  suggested  the  spirit  of  life 
and  the  character  of  their  sitters. 

Sculpture  in  Rome  received  its  stimulus  from  its  contact 
with  the  art  life  of  Greece  and  her  colonies.  The  fall  of  Syra- 
cuse in  212  B.  C.  gave  the  Romans  their  first  acquaintance1 
with  the  splendor  of  the  Hellenic  civilization ;  for  Marcellus 
carried  away  with  him  to  Rome  many  pictures  and  statues. 
Other  generals  followed  his  example.  Capua  was  despoiled 
of  its  art  treasures  in  210  B.  C.,  and  Tarentum  in  209  B.  C. 
The  mainland  of  Greece  yielded  its  first  booty  in  197  B.  C., 
when  T.  Quinctius  Flamininus  sent  so  many  objects  to  Rome 
to  be  carried  in  his  triumphal  procession  that  it  took  two  days 
to  pass  all  of  them  through  the  streets  of  the  capital.  Quan- 
tity hereafter  was  as  desirable  as  quality.  One  general2  brought 
with  him  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  bronze  statues  and  two 
hundred  and  thirty  marble  statues,  while  another  3  had  need  of 

1  The  Conquest  of  Campagna,  which  had  taken  place  much  earlier, 
had  given  the  Romans  a  chance  to  know  Greek  art,  but  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  taken  much  interest  in  it  then.  2  M.  Fulvius  Nobilior. 
3^Emilius  Paullus. 


362  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

two  hundred  and  fifty  wagons  to  cart  his  booty  of  Greek 
pictures  and  statues  in  triumphal  procession  through  the  streets 
of  Rome.  In  146  B.  C.  Greece  was  conquered  and  made  a 
Roman  province.  From  this  time  on  a  regular  traffic  in  art 
objects  took  place,  not  to  mention  the  shiploads  of  statues  that 
were  sent  to  Rome  by  the  generals  and  governors. 

The  part  taken  by  the  Romans  in  the  creation  of  new  statuary 
during  the  first  century  and  a  half  after  their  first  intimate 
acquaintance  with  Greek  art  in  212  B.  C.  is  very  uncertain. 
Some  scholars  believe  it  consisted  only  in  copying  earlier 
works.  This,  however,  is  hardly  credible  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  in  later  times  the  Romans  were  sufficiently  skilled  to  carve 
excellent  portraits  and  good  historical  reliefs.  The  subjects 
continued  to  be  largely  Greek ;  the  execution,  however,  may 
be  credited  with  equal  justice  to  both  Greeks  and  Romans. 
Unwilling  to  enter  into  the  merits  of  either  case,  most  writers 
speak  of  works  supposed  to  date  later  than  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  before  Christ  as  Graeco-Roman.  A  few 
such  works  were  discussed  in  Part  VII  of  this  Handbook, 
where  it  was  noted  that  it  may  be  wise  to  detach  several  statues 
from  the  preceding  groups  and  add  them  to  the  list  of  Graeco- 
Roman  works. 

The  last  years  of  the  Republic  yielded  some  good  portraits, 
but  Roman  national  sculpture  proper  had  its  rise  with  the 
empire. 

The  first  period  of  this  sculpture  is  characterized  by  ele- 
gance, refinement  of  thought,  and  beauty  of  execution.  Much 
is  idealized.  It  is  the  age  of  Augustus.  In  the  next  period, 
which  is  at  its  best  under  Trajan,  realism  is  aimed  at.  Artists 
strive  to  reproduce  the  appearance  of  things,  and  they  suc- 
ceed. Some  critics  have  called  them  illusionists.  The  ways, 
however,  of  good  sculptors  and  of  illusionists  soon  part,  so 
that  the  age  of  Hadrian  already  marks  a  decline. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL  ART.'      363 

Hadrian  himself  was  an  art  collector  of  importance.  His 
villa J  has  yielded  statues  of  almost  all  styles  and  periods,  but, 
strangely  enough,  not  one  archaic  or  archaistic  statue.  But  his 
apparently  great  love  for  the  creations  of  the  past  seems  to 
have  rendered  him  unable  to  appreciate  the  efforts  of  his 
contemporaries.  These,  incapable  of  withdrawing  from  the 
realistic  influences  of  their  age,  but  anxious  to  make  allow- 
ances to  the  imperial  taste,  executed  with  minute  care  figures 
designed  to  impress  by  pictorial  realism  rather  than  by  form, 
and  by  thus  mixing  two  incompatible  styles  paved  the  way  for 
future  decline. 

How  low  the  art  of  sculpture  could  sink  in  the  next  genera- 
tions is  shown  by  those  reliefs  of  the  Arch  of  Constantine 
which  are  not  taken  from  earlier  monuments,  Plate  3470. 
The  poverty  of  these  reliefs  is  the  more  remarkable  as  the 
arch  itself  is  impressive  and  far  from  showing  any  decline  in 
the  art  of  architecture.  From  the  first  to  the  last  architecture 2 
was  the  art  of  the  Romans,  just  as  sculpture  3  had  been  the  art 
of  the  Greeks. 

PLATE  325a.  Chimaera.  Of  bronze.  Archaeological  Museum, 
Florence.  Discovered  near  Arezzo  in  1554.  Restorations:  the  left 

'See  Hermann  Winterfeld,  Die  Villa  des  Hadrian  bei  Tivoli,  which 
contains  a  list  of  works  of  art  found  there. 

2  Wickhoff,  Roman  art,  takes  a  different  view.  He  has,  more 
carefully  than  anyone  before  him,  investigated  the  Roman  temper  in 
respect  to  the  graphic  arts.  His  conclusions  are  not  generally  ac- 
cepted, and  the  writer  himself  cannot  agree  with  him.  Wickhoff,  how- 
ever, deserves  the  credit  of  having  treated  for  the  first  time  in  detail  a 
subject,  the  difficulty  of  which  has  deterred  most  investigators.  A 
second  attempt  may  prove  more  acceptable,  and  promises  better  suc- 
cess because  of  the  pioneer  work  done  by  Wickhoff.  For  specific  ref- 
utations of  some  of  his  views  see  Theodor  Schreiber,  Jahrbuch  XI, 
1896,  pp.  78ff.  3And  perhaps  painting. 


364  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

\front  and  hind  legs,  the  snake,  the  end  of  the  right  horn  and  beard  of 
the  goat.     Amelung,  247  ;  Reinach  II,  695,  4. 

The  Chimaera  of  ancient  mythology  was  a  creation  of  the 
fancy  of  the  story-teller  rather  than  of  the  artist.  Lion,  goat 
and  snake  may  be  combined  in  one  fearful  animal  in  the 
imagination,  but  cannot  be  joined  together  in  bodily  forms 
without  losing  much  force,  or  running  the  risk  of  appearing 
ridiculous.  The  goat  element  offered  the  greatest  difficulty, 
and  one  which  is  hardly  successfully  solved  by  adding  the 
goat's  head  and  neck  to  the  back  of  the  Chimaera.  Goat  and 
snake  were  ancient  symbols  of  the  thunderstorm,  and  the 
aigis  of  the  Greeks  at  first  probably  was  a  goatskin,  surrounded 
by  writhing  snakes.  It  was  the  attribute  of  Zeus  and  of 
Athena  as  goddess  of  the  air.  Apollo  is  said  to  have  shaken 
it  in  the  face  of  the  Gauls  l  when  his  sanctuary,  Delphi,  was 
threatened  by  them.  Later  the  aigis  came  to  be  looked  upon 
as  a  weapon  of  protection,  a  kind  of  shield. 

The  formidable  Chimaera  was  the  dangerous  foe  of  Beller- 
ophon  riding  through  the  air  on  the  winged  horse  Pegasus. 
The  Florence  bronze  shows  a  wound  in  the  neck  of  the  goat,2 
so  that  the  struggle  with  Bellerophon  must  be  supposed  to  be 
in  progress.  This  explains  the  attitude  of  the  monster  and  its 
fury. 

An  Etruscan  inscription  appears  on  the  right  foreleg.  What 
it  contains  is  beyond  our  power  to  know,  because  no  key  has 
yet  been  found  to  the  Etruscan  language.3  Perhaps  it  might 
offer  an  indication  as  to  the  origin  of  the  bronze.  Without 
being  able  to  make  use  of  it,  most  scholars  to-day  believe  that 
this  Chimaera  is  a  Greek  work.  In  Sikyon,  the  Greek  home 

1  See  E.  von  Mach,  p.  315.  2Not  seen  in  the  photograph.  3  A  few 
inscriptions,  especially  those  containing  names,  have,  it  is  true,  been 
deciphered.  The  best  book  is  Corssen,  Sprache  der  Etrusker. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       365 

of  bronze  casting,  Bellerophon  was  worshipped,  for  the  neigh- 
boring Korinth  was  his  birthplace.  The  coins  of  both  cities 
and  their  colonies  often  contain  pictures  of  the  Chimaera,  and 
the  lion's  head  of  the  Florence  bronze  is  not  unlike  Greek 
lions  of  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ.  In  the 
absence  of  accurate  knowledge  of  contemporary  Etruscan  art, 
it  is,  however,  impossible  to  declare  with  certainty  that  this 
Chimaera  is  not  an  Etruscan  work. 

PLATE  325b.  The  Wolf  Of  the  Capitol.  Of  bronze.  Palazzo 
dei  Conservatori,  Rome.  Known  to  have  stood  in  front  of  the  Lateran 
Palace  in  Rome  as  early  as  the  tenth  century  of  the  Christian  era,  and 
removed  to  the  Capitol1  in  1471.  Restorations:  the  lions  and,  accord- 
ing to  Helbig,  so  many  parts  everywhere  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  what 
is  ancient  and  what  is  modern,  except  the  head  and  neck,  which  are 
undoubtedly  ancient.  Helbig,  618  ;  Robinson,  557  ;  Reinach  II,  728,4. 

The  wolf  nursing  Romulus  and  Remus  was  not  always  rep- 
resented as  the  kind  mother,  but  sometimes  as  the  wild  beast 
at  bay.  Thus  she  is  known  from  several  coins 2  and  since  she 
generally  is  looking  toward  the  children  when  she  is  represented 
as  nursing  them,  Helbig  with  much  probability  suggests  that  the 
Capitoline  bronze  has  received  an  erroneous  addition  in  the 
twins.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  current  identification  of  this 
statue  with  the  one  mentioned  in  ancient  literature  3  as  erected 

1  The  Palazzo  dei  Conservatori  is  also  known  as  the  New  Capitoline 
Museum.  2  Helbig  II,  460,  fig.  30,  gives  one  of  these  coins  ;  see  also 
the  wall  painting  from  Pompeii,  Century  Magazine,  February,  1905, 
picture  facing  p.  598.  3Livy  X,  23,  says,  et  ad  ficum  Ruminalem  sim- 
ulacra infantium  conditorium  urbis  sub  uberibus  lupa  posuerunt,  which, 
translated,  reads,  "  and  they  placed  near  the  Ruminal  fig-tree  the  images 
of  the  infant  founders  of  the  city  under  the  breast  of  the  wolf."  Rob- 
inson understands  this  to  mean,  "  that  the  children  were  added  to  a 
figure  that  already  stood  there."  Such  an  interpretation,  however, 
takes  no  account  of  the  ablative  after  sub  ;  and  while  there  is  a  possi- 


366  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

near  the  sacred  fig-tree  in  Rome  in  295  B.  C.  is  wrong.  It  is 
so  also  for  another  reason,  which  Helbig  presses  perhaps  with 
too  much  vigor.  The  wolf  seems  to  him  to  be  too  archaic  to 
have  been  erected  in  295  B.  C.,  when  the  Romans  were 
already  in  possession  of  Campagna,  and  therefore  able  to 
know  Hellenistic  and  Hellenic  art.  It  must,  however,  be  re- 
membered that  we  have  no  information  as  to  the  Romans 
having  become  interested  in  Greek  art  as  early  as  295  B.  C. 
The  first  Greek  spoils  of  works  of  art  entered  Rome  in 
212  B.  C. 

If  it  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  assign  a  date  to  this  wolf, 
unfamiliar  as  we  are  with  the  beginnings  of  Roman  sculpture. 
This  statue  is  nevertheless  extremely  interesting  as  showing  the 
straightforward,  matter-of-fact  tendencies  of  the  Romans,  po- 
tent as  well  in  the  beginning  as  in  the  prime  of  their  art. 

PLATE  326.  CamillUS.  Of  bronze.  Palazzo  dei  Conservator!, 
Rome.  Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  It  was  removed  to 
the  Capitol,  perhaps  from  the  Lateran  Museum,  by  Pope  Sixtus  IV 
(1471-1484).  Helbig,  607;  F.  W.,  1561  ;  Reinach  II,  502,  4.  For 
many  replicas  of  the  statue  see  Reinach,  s.  v.  Camille.  Compare  also 
the  standing  figure  in  the  frontispiece. 

Camillus,  a  word  of  doubtful  etymology,  is  the  Roman  des- 
ignation for  a  high-born  attendant  at  a  sacrifice.  It  is  also 
more  loosely  used  of  any  unmarried  boy  of  good  family. 
Boys  like  the  one  of  the  Roman  bronze  are  often  seen  in  re- 
liefs '  of  sacrifices,  so  that  this  one  is  generally  understood  to 

bility,  to  be  sure,  of  correctly  using  sub  with  the  ablative  instead  of  the 
more  logical  accusative  in  the  meaning  of  placing  something  under 
something  else,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  passage  as  a  whole. 
It  refers  to  the  entire  group,  wolf  and  children,  and  not  only  to  the 
children. 

"Similar  figures  are  seen  in  the  relief,  Baumeister  IV,  p.  1713,  and 
in  the  frontispiece. 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       367 

be  the  attendant  at  a  sacrifice.  As  such  he  ought  to  carry 
sacrificial  implements.  These,  however,  have  not  been  pre- 
served either  with  this  statue  or  any  of  its  replicas.  Perhaps, 
therefore,  the  artist  did  not  intend  to  portray  a  definite  inci- 
dent, but  simply  to  perpetuate  one  of  the  most  pleasing  types 
known  to  him. 

Basing  his  work  on  those  of  the  fifth  century  of  Greek  art, 
the  sculptor  has  yet  succeeded  in  preserving  his  individuality. 
He  is  far  from  being  a  copyist.  The  modesty  of  the  well-born 
youth  is  excellently  reflected  in  the  severity  of  the  artist's 
style,  while  the  immediateness  of  the  boy's  presence  is  sug- 
gested, in  spite  of  his  idealized  face,  by  the  almost  haphazard 
fall  of  the  folds  of  his  drapery.  A  comparison  of  this  statue 
with  the  Amazons,  Plate  1 1 8ff.,  is  very  instructive. 

The  date  of  this  statue,  which  treats  an  undoubtedly  Roman 
subject,  is  uncertain.  It  seems  impossible  earlier  than  the 
time  when  the  Romans  had  become  familiar  with  Greek  art 
and  had  learned  to  appreciate  it.  How  long  it  took  them  to 
do  this  after  Greek  statues  had  begun  to  pour  into  Rome  in 
the  second  century  before  Christ  we  do  not  know.  The 
vigorous  spontaneity  of  this  Camillus  is  unlike  the  studied  re- 
finement of  the  art  of  Augustus  or  the  realism  of  the  next 
period.  It  has,  therefore,  been  dated  in  the  prime  of  the 
republic,  but  whether  earlier  or  later  than  the  turn  of  the  cen- 
tury (100  B.  C.)  is  indeterminable. 

PLATE  327.  Orator.  Of  bronze.  Archaeological  Museum,  Flor- 
ence. Discovered  in  1566  near  the  Trasimenian  Lake.  Restorations: 
the  right  arm,  which  was  broken,  has  been  joined.  The  eyes  are  lost. 
Amelung,  249;  Reinach  I,  452,  2.  The  lower  hem  of  the  cloak  con- 
tains an  inscription  which  Corssen  '  interprets  to  mean  that  this  is  the 
statue  of  Metilius,  erected  in  his  honor  by  his  widow,  Aulese  Clensi, 
and  made  by  the  bronze-caster,  Tenine  Tuthines. 

1  Corssen,  Sprache  der  Etrusker  I,  pp.  7i2ff. 


368  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  soberness  of  this  statue  is  most  apparent  when  it  is 
compared  with  the  decorative  charm  of  most  Roman  statues, 
which  in  this  respect  are  generally  far  more  influenced  by 
Greek  art.  No  superfluous  details  are  permitted  to  detract 
attention  from  the  person  here  portrayed.  The  skill  of  the 
artist  is  considerable,  as  is  best  seen  in  the  gesture  '  of  the  right 
hand,2  which  taken  together  with  the  upward  tilt  of  the  head, 
forcefully  suggests  the  powerful  address  of  Metilius.  To  this 
idea  everything  is  sacrificed,  and  no  attempt  has  been  made 
to  make  the  lines  of  the  figure  rhythmical  and  pleasing  by 
balancing  the  raised  right  arm  with  a  prominent  left  arm. 
Truthfully  and  almost  prosaically  the  artist  has  told  his  story, 
unconcerned  about  the  appearance  of  his  work  so  long  as  it 
was  intelligible. 

PLATE  328.  TOgatUS  Sacrificing.  Of  marble.  Vatican,  Rome. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown,  formerly  in  the  Giustiniani  col- 
lection at  Venice,  acquired  for  the  Vatican  under  Pope  Clement  XIV 
(1769-1774).  Restorations;  the  nose,  the  parts  of  the  toga  adjoining 
the  cheeks,  the  right  forearm  with  the  cup,  and  the  left  hand.  The 
head  was  broken  and  is  by  some  believed  not  to  belong  to  the  statue. 
Helbig,  330 ;  F.  W.,  1677  ;  Robinson,  558  ;  Reinach  I,  451,  7.  For 
similar  figures  in  relief,  see  Plate  33ib  and  Baumeister  III,  p.  1713. 
For  a  similar  statue  see  Reinach  I,  583,  2,  the  statue  of  Hadrian  in 
the  Capitoline  Museum,  Rome. 

"  This  is  the  finest  toga  statue  extant,"  says  Helbig,  "  and  it 
is  well  adapted  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  impressive  dignity  lent 
by  the  toga  3  when  arranged  in  the  prescribed  manner,  to  a  tall 

1  Similar  gestures  in  modern  statues  often  are  failures,  e.  g.,  the  statue 
of  Edward  Everett  in  the  Public  Gardens  in  Boston.  2  The  hand, 
which  was  the  nearest  object  to  the  camera,  has  become  over  large  in 
the  picture.  3  For  a  description  of  the  toga  and  the  several  ways  of 
wearing  it,  see  Baumeister,  s.  ij.  Toga,  III,  pp.  i822ff. 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.        369 

and  well  proportioned  figure,  both  by  its  voluminousness  and 
by  its  large  folds."  As  was  customary  in  sacrifices,  this  Roman 
stands  capite  velato,  that  is,  he  has  drawn  his  toga  over  his 
head.  Virgil1  says  this  was  done  in  order  to  concentrate  the 
attention  of  the  worshipper  on  his  intercourse  with  the  gods 
and  to  remove  all  danger  of  outward  disturbance.  The  ordi- 
nary way  of  wearing  the  toga  appears  in  the  London  statue, 
Plate  jzgb.  Compared  with  this  figure,  the  Vatican  Togatus 
gains  much  ;  for  the  execution  of  his  drapery  "is  masterly,  and 
in  spite  of  the  number  of  folds  reproduced  by  the  sculptor,  the 
effect  is  both  clear  and  calm."2 

PLATE  329a.  "  ThUSneWa."  Of  marble.  Loggia  dei  Lanzi,  Flor- 
ence. Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown.  Restorations:  the  lower 
right  arm,  the  finger  of  the  left  hand,  the  nose  and  several  minor  details. 
Amelung,  6;  F.  W.,  1563;  Reinach  II,  507,  7. 

This  statue  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  other  extant 
statues  of  northern  barbarians  with  whom  the  Romans  had 
come  in  fierce  contact.  The  garment,  the  bare  breast,  and 
the  long  hair  agree  with  the  Roman  descriptions  of  the  Ger- 
mans, so  that  this  statue  may  be  looked  upon  as  typifying  the 

1  ^Eneid  III,  405-407. 

Ne  qua  inter  sanctos  ignis  in  honore  deorum 
Hostilis  fades  occurrat  et  omina  turbet. 

2  Mr.  F.  J.  Scott,  Portraitures  of Juliiis  C&sar,  and  Portraits  of  Julius 
C&sar,  the  Scott  Collection.   A  Brief  Description,  No.  4,  claims  this  statue 
as  a  possible  portrait  of  Caesar  in  the  same  breath  as  he  doubts  its 
being  an  antique.     He  advances  no  arguments,  but  says,  "  I   do  not 
know  what  reason  there  is  for  supposing  it  to  be  an  antique."     Excel- 
lent reasons  are  its  style,  which  is  fundamentally  different  from  that  of 
Michelangelo,  to  whose  time  Scott  would  assign  the  statue ;  and  its 
marble,  which  probably  is  Pentelic  and  certainly  of   a  variety  never 
known  to  have  been  used  by  the  Italians. 


37°  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

women  of  that  race.  The  fact  that  no  attempt  at  portraiture 
is  noticeable,  disposes  of  the  popular  name  of  this  figure  as 
Thusnelda. 

The  column-like  stability  of  the  statue  suggests  that  it  origi- 
nally formed  a  part  of  an  architectural  scheme.  The  artist, 
however,  has  shown  his  skill  in  turning  such  a  limitation  to 
good  advantage.  The  pose  of  the  woman  is  expressive  of 
controlled  sorrow,  which  is  also  seen  in  her  face ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  indicates  the  lesser  grace  in  movements 
and  poses  with  which  the  Romans  credited  the  people  of  the 
Northern  races. 

To  the  modern  taste,  accustomed  to  the  fierce  and  passionate 
portrayal  of  emotions,  the  Florence  statue  may  seem  weak. 
One  glance,  however,  at  the  Maiden,  Plate  166,  reveals  how 
clearly  this  woman  has  been  characterized  as  a  barbarian 
mourning  the  lost  independence  of  her  race. 

Recently '  this  statue  has  been  called  "  Medea,"  because  of 
a  seeming  resemblance  to  paintings  of  Medea 2  meditating  the 
murder  of  her  children.  The  characteristic  garment  of  the 
statue  and  its  correspondence  with  undoubted  statues  of  bar- 
barians seems  to  dispose  of  this  interpretation. 

PLATE  329b.  TOgatUS.  Of  marble.  British  Museum,  London. 
Date  and  place  of  discovery  unknown ;  formerly  probably  in  the  Arun- 
dell  Collection.  Restorations :  the  nose,  the  ears,  part  of  the  neck,  the 
left  hand  with  the  roll  of  manuscript,  and  many  small  pieces  of  the 
drapery.  British  Museum  Catalogue,  1943  ;  Reinach  II,  617,  4. 

This  statue,  undoubtedly  the  portrait  of  an  unknown  man,  is 
interesting  chiefly  as  showing  the  mode  of  wearing  the  toga  in 

1  Milchhofer  42.     Berliner  Winckelmanns  program,  p.  37. 
2 For  pictures  of   these  paintings    see   Baumeister   II,  p.  875,   and 
Springer-Michaelis  I,  p.  173. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL  ART.        371 

the  ordinary  walks  of  life.  It  differs,  therefore,  from  the  statue, 
Plate  328,  where  the  garment  is  pulled  over  the  head,  as  was 
customary  at  sacrifices. 

The  massive  folds  are  here  less  well  treated  than  in  the 
Vatican  statue,  but  even  their  excessive  prominence  cannot 
disguise  the  dignity  of  appearance  of  a  Roman  gentleman. 
Compared  with  the  "  Thusnelda  "  on  the  same  plate,  the  pose 
of  the  Roman  indicates  the  grace  of  movement  that  character- 
ized the  classic  people  in  contrast  to  the  barbarians. 

PLATE  330.  Minerva,  Commonly  Called  Etruscan.  Of  bronze. 
Archaeological  Museum,  Florence.  Discovered  together  with  the  Chim- 
aera,  Plate  3253.,  near  Arezzo  in  1554.  Restorations:  the  right  arm, 
the  entire  lower  part  of  the  body  from  below  the  hips,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  feet,  which  are  antique.  Amelung,  245  ;  Reinach  *  I,  233,  4. 

This  statue  is  commonly  called  Etruscan,  probably  because 
it  was  found  near  Arezzo,  together  with  the  Chimaera,  Plate 
325a.  It  may  be  of  Etruscan  workmanship,  but  undoubtedly 
repeats  an  earlier  Greek  type,  extant  in  several  replicas,2  in 
accordance  with  which  the  entire  lower  part  of  the  figure  has 
been  restored.  The  resemblance  of  this  Athena-Minerva  with 
the  muse  in  the  center  of  the  slab  of  the  base  of  Mantineia, 
Plate  211,  is  very  interesting.  The  grace  and  beauty  of  that 
muse  were  retained  when  her  type  was  adapted  to  that  of  the 
sterner  goddess  Athena. 

PLATES  331-333  and  FRONTISPIECE.  Reliefs  of  the  Ara  Pacis 
AugUSti.  Of  marble.  The  reliefs,  Plates  331  and  332,  are  in  the  Uffizi 
Gallery  in  Florence ;  those  on  Plate  333  and  the  Frontispiece  are  in 
the  Terme  in  Rome.  Discovered,  exact  date  unknown,  in  Rome  in  the 
place  now  covered  by  the  Palazzo  Ottoboni-Fiano.  Restorations : 
Plate  331,  almost  all  the  heads,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  feet,  which 

'The  picture  in  Reinach  gives  an  inverted,  or  mirror-image  of  the 
figure.  2  For  pictures  see  Amelung,  figures  45  and  46. 


372  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

project  beyond  the  plane  of  the  relief;  on  the  other  reliefs  several 
minor  parts ;  and  on  Plate  333  all  the  parts  that  were  necessary  to  join 
the  extant  fragments.  Petersen,  Rom.  Mitth.,  1894,  pp.  17 iff.,  and  1895, 
pp.  I38ff. ;  a  monograph,  Vienna,  1902,  and  Arch.  Anz.,  1903,  pp.  iSaff. ; 
Amelung,  166;  Wickhoff,  Roman  Art,  pp.  3iff.  See  also  Helbig,  156. 
For  the  most  recent  discussions  see  the  articles  mentioned  in  the  re- 
views, A.J.  A.,  VII,  1903,  p.  479,  and  VIII,  1904,  p.  in.  For  coins 
with  pictures  of  the  Ara  Pads,  see  Jh.  Oesterr.  Arch.  Inst.  V.,  1902, 
pp.  153-164. 

All  these  reliefs,  and  a  few  more  in  Vienna,  Rome,  and 
Paris,  together  with  many  that  are  lost,  once  decorated  the 
great  Altar  of  Peace  of  Augustus,  Ara  Pads  Augusti,  erected 
in  his  honor  by  order  of  the  Senate  between  the  years  13  and  9 
before  Christ. 

The  altar  itself  stood  in  the  center  of  a  large  square  open 
court,  about  thirty  feet  wide  and  surrounded  by  a  wall  approxi- 
mately twenty  feet  high,  which  was  pierced  by  a  large  door 
immediately  opposite  the  altar.  The  wall  was  profusely  deco- 
rated both  outside  and  in.  A  specimen  of  the  scheme  of  this 
decoration  is  given  on  Plate  333. 

In  the  beauty  of  its  floral  patterns  the  Ara  Pads  stands 
unrivalled.  Accurate  observation  of  the  forms  of  nature  vies 
with  delicate  treatment,  and  throughout  a  highly  artistic  tem- 
per is  shown  in  the  choice  and  the  arrangement  of  appropriate 
designs.  The  completed  decoration,  however,  impresses  the 
spectator,  not  with  warmth  of  feeling,  as  the  Greek  works  do, 
but  with  what  has  been  called  "cold  elegance."  The 'intel- 
lectual quality  of  the  work  which  is  very  apparent  is,  com- 
pared with  Greek  works,  lacking  in  "  divine  inspiration." 

The  procession  is  well  managed  and  characteristically 
Roman.  The  unbridled  gaiety  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  had 
no  place  on  reliefs  portraying  the  dignified  family  of  Augustus 
and  his  suite  ;  nor  did  Italian  artists  look  with  favor  on  the 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.        373 

allegorical  representation  of  the  victories  of  the  Gauls  in  Per- 
gamon,  where  the  fight  of  the  gods  and  the  giants  had  been 
carved  in  the  attempt  of  showing  the  importance  of  the  vic- 
tories. On  the  Ara  Pads  real  men  and  women  are  repre- 
sented, idealized  to  a  certain  extent,  but  with  portrait  heads, 
and  in  every-day  garb. 

The  large  man  in  the  center,  Plate  33 2b,  is  possibly 
Augustus.  Like  the  other  Roman,  Plate  328,  he  has  pulled 
his  toga  over  his  head,  preparatory  to  the  sacrifice. 

Of  the  other  figures,  only  a  few  have  been  identified,  with 
some  probability  to  be  sure,  but  not  with  certainty.1  Livia* 
his  third  wife,  follows  Augustus,  and  between  them  is  the  little 
Lucius.  On  the  upper  slab,  Plate  33 2a,  the  woman3  to  the 
left  is  Antonia,  the  wife  of  Drusus,  who  stands  near  her.  Be- 
tween them  is  the  little  Livia,  while  Germanicus  has  laid  hold 
of  the  mantle  of  Drusus.  Julia,  the  beautiful  daughter  of 
Augustus,  stands  with  veiled  head  in  the  center,  and  Tiberius, 
with  raised  right  hand,  behind  her. 

Since  most  of  the  heads  on  the  other  slabs  are  restored,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  who  the  people  are.  Probably  they 
are  members  of  the  royal  suite  and  senators  of  Rome. 

The  figures  in  very  low  relief  in  the  back  rows  are  char- 
acteristic of  Roman  reliefs.4  In  Greek  works  they  are  rare.s 
They  indicate  an  astonishing  lack  of  knowledge,  or  disregard 
of  the  principles6  of  relief  sculptures,  and  show  such  strong 
affinities  to  the  style  of  the  later  gem-cutters  that  they  suggest 
a  stronger  influence  from  this  quarter  than  from  Greek  relief 
sculpture. 

The  artists  have  well  acquitted  themselves  of  the  difficult 

1  For  detailed  identification  of  the  members  of  the  family  of  Augustus 
see  Domaszewske,  Jh.  Oesterr.  Arch.Inst.  VI,  1903,  pp.  57-66.  2  Com- 
pare her  with  the  Livia-Pudicitia,  Plate  435.  3Her  nose  is  restored. 
4  See  Plate  338.  5  For  one  such  figure  see  Slab  VI  of  the  North  Frieze 
of  the  Parthenon.  6  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  37ff. 


374  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

task  of  combining  a  large  number  of  dignified  personages, 
most  of  them  wearing  the  toga,  and  of  necessity  therefore  in 
similar  poses,  into  one  long  procession,  without  wearying  the 
spectator  or  sacrificing  the  individuality  of  the  figures.  In- 
terest in  these  reliefs  does  not  wane,  but  grows  the  more  one 
studies  them.  When  once  one  has  become  accustomed  to 
the  sight  of  the  many  togas,  one  detects  many  pleasant  details, 
both  in  the  children  and  in  the  grown  people.  Defects  in 
drawing,  to  be  sure,  also  appear,  generally  due  to  the  attempt 
of  connecting  the  shadow-like  figures  of  the  back-ground  with 
those  of  the  foreground.  The  hand,  for  instance,  laid  on  the 
head  of  the  boy  behind  the  so-called  Augustus,  Plate  33 2b, 
is  out  of  proportion  with  the  figure  to  which  it  belongs. 
Similarly  awkward  is  the  face  of  the  woman  behind  the  so- 
called  Antonia,  Plate  3323,  whose  garment  pulled  about  her 
head  gives  her  the  appearance  of  an  image  seen  in  a  mirror. 
The  disposition  of  the  feet  has  given  the  artists  the  greatest 
difficulty.  A  comparison  with  the  Parthenon  frieze  is  here 
especially  interesting.  On  the  Ara  Pads  every  figure  has  its 
legs  posed  and  carved  without  reference  to  those  of  its  neigh- 
bors. The  result  is  a  seeming  confusion  of  legs,  when  the 
reliefs  are  studied,  not  in  detail,  but  in  their  entirety.  On 
the  Parthenon  frieze  the  opposite  is  the  case.  Viewed  as  a 
whole,  there  is  perfect  order ;  viewed  in  detail,  many  a  figure 
seems  inaccurate.  , 

The  most  delicate  compositions  on  the  Ara  Pads  are  found 
in  a  smaller  frieze,  which  represented  the  attendants  with  the 
victims  for  the  sacrifice,  of  which  the  frontispiece  reproduces 
a  sample.  The  rhythm  is  gayer,  the  design  less  restrained, 
and  the  modelling  of  the  nude  often  exquisite.  Noteworthy  is 
the  pictorial  element  of  the  relief,  frontispiece,  which  closely 
resembles  some  of  the  Hellenistic  r  reliefs,  Plates  3o6ff.  Even 

1  Wickhoff,  as  mentioned  above,  assigns  all  these  reliefs  to  the 
Romans. 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       375 

in  these  carefully  wrought  figures T  the  artist  has  been  unable 
to  carve  the  legs  well.  The  left  leg  of  the  standing  figure2  is 
unpleasant  in  effect,  because  it  is  in  too  low  relief.  It  follows 
the  same  erroneous  theories3  of  relief  sculpture  that  are  found 
in  the  earliest  Greek  art,  and  are  exhibited  in  monuments 
like  the  Spartan  Tombstone,  Plate  3673.  The  whole  develop- 
ment of  Greek  relief  sculpture  had  passed  unnoticed.  In  spite 
of  their  technical  skill,  the  Roman  artists,  when  it  came  to  a 
knowledge  of  principles,  stood  where  the  first  Greeks  had 
stood.-*  This  is  a  most  remarkable  phenomenon,  and  one 
which  doubtless  accounts  for  the  dearth  of  really  beautiful 
Roman  pieces  of  sculpture. 

PLATES  334  and  335.    Two  Panels  from  the  Arch  of  Titus. 

Of  marble.  In  the  Forum  in  Rome.  The  best  account  of  ancient 
triumphal  arches  is  by  Graef  in  Baumeister,  pp.  i865ff.,  whose  list  is 
corrected  by  Frothingham,  A.  J.  A.,  VIII,  1904,  pp.  iff.  Philippi, 
Ueber  die  Romischen  Triumphal  Reliefs,  in  Abhandlungen  d.  phil.,  hist., 
Classe  der  Sachs.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  VI.,  1872,  pp.  27iff., 
and  in  Annali,  1875,  PP-  42^-  Jh-  Oesterr.  Arch.  Inst.  II,  1899.  For 
the  art  of  the  reliefs,  see  Wickhoff,5  Roman  Art,  pp.  76ff. 

The  Arch  of  Titus  was  intended  to  commemorate  the  tri- 
umphs of  this  emperor  over  the  Jews  in  70  A.  D.  The  date 
of  the  erection  of  the  arch  is  unknown,  except  that  it  was 
built  after  the  death  of  Titus  (September  13,  81  A.  D.)  by  his 
successor,  Domitian,  who  himself  died  in  96  A.  D. 

1  The  left  hand  of  the  standing  figure  is  an  exception.  2This  figure 
may  be  a  Camillus,  cf.  Plate  326.  3  For  these  theories  see  E.  von  Mach, 
pp.  I25ff.  and  pp.  37ff.  4This  is  also  true  of  many  modern  artists, 
some  of  whom  even  boast  of  their  ignorance  of  principles.  They 
worship  only  skill.  5  The  writer  is  unable  to  accept  Wickhoff's  discus- 
sion as  even  partially  correct.  Wickhoff  falls  a  victim  to  the  same 
fallacy  that  ensnared  the  Roman  sculptors,  namely,  that  a  mixture  of 
painting  and  sculpture  will  result,  if  skilfully  done,  in  good  art. 


376  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  two  large  reliefs  reproduced  on  Plates  334  and  335, 
give  evidence  of  much  power  on  the  part  of  the  artist,  and 
indicate  that  had  he  better  understood  the  principles  of  sculpt- 
ure, his  work  would  have  taken  rank  second  to  none.  The 
victorious  and  joyous  entrance  of  the  emperor  in  Rome,  and 
the  eager  advance  of  the  bearers  of  his  spoils  are  magnificently 
conceived.  The  man  in  whose  honor  these  monuments  were 
erected  was  called  "  the  love  and  delight  of  the  human  race  " 
(amor  et  delicice  generis  humant)  ;  and,  compared  with  the 
perfunctory  work  of  many  Roman  historical  reliefs,  one  feels 
that  here  the  artist  has  introduced  some  of  his  personal 
admiration  for  the  man  beloved  by  all. 

This  of  itself  adds  a  worth  to  these  reliefs  that  is  shared  by 
few  pieces  of  Roman  sculpture.  It  is  further  increased  by  the 
successful  selection  of  the  moments  for  representation,  both 
of  which  are  of  inherent  interest  and  capable  of  artistic  treat- 
ment. The  distribution  of  masses  is  well  managed,  with  the 
most  prominent  objects,  the  candlestick  and  the  chariot,  not 
in  the  centers'  of  the  compositions,  but  slightly  behind  them. 
This,  together  with  the  suggested  advance,  results  in  arousing 
the  desired  illusion  of  rapidity,  and  may  be  said  to  be  a  most 
successful  device.  In  the  relief,  Plate  335,  this  illusion  is 
increased  by  the  representation  of  the  goal  —  the  city  gate  — 
toward  which  the  action  is  taking  place. 

This  gate,  on  the  other  hand,  marks  one  of  the  many  serious 
defects  of  both  reliefs.  Perspective  is  introduced  with  a  per- 
sistence out  of  keeping  with  the  requirements2  of  sculpture 
and  permissible  only  in  painting.  This  is  best  seen  in  the 
chariot  scene,  Plate  334.  In  painting  there  would  not  have 
been  an  actual  background.  The  winged  goddess  of  victory 

1  For  an  explanation  of  this  device  see  the  discussion  to  Plate  338. 
2  See  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  37ff .  and  pp.  1 27  ft. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL  ART.        377 

would  have  seemed  to  be  descending  through  the  air  with  as 
much  freedom  as  she  is  now  restrained  by  lack  of  space.  The 
people  on  either  side  of  the  chariot  would  have  been  relegated 
to  their  proper  spheres  instead  of  crowding  the  chariot,  and 
the  poor  device  of  carving  heads  in  such  flat  relief  on  the 
background  that  the  absence  of  their  shadows  reveals  their 
unreality  would  have  been  avoided.  How  much  the  chariot 
itself  has  lost  by  the  introduction  of  the  groups  of  people  to 
the  right  and  left  is  best  seen  when  it  is  compared  with  the 
Greek  relief,  Plate  48b. 

Barring  the  city  gate,  Plate  335,  this  slab  has  suffered  less 
from  perspective  of  design  than  the  other.  It  shares,  however, 
with  the  other  the  defect  of  the  faces  carved  in  outline  on  the 
background.  The  same  defect  was  noticed  in  the  Ara  Pads  l 
Augusti,  Plates  33 iff.  It  is  here  especially  noticeable,  because 
the  heads  of  the  men  in  the  front  are  now  broken  away,  so  that 
the  heads  in  the  back  seem  to  belong  to  the  decapited  trunks 
in  front,  with  which  they  are  out  of  all  proportion. 

In  defence  of  the  Roman  artists,  it  may  be  argued  that  their 
sculptures  were  colored  ;  that  they  really  were  paintings  accent- 
uated by  sculpture.  This,  however,  is  but  a  poor  defence,  for 
although  color  would  make  the  defects  of  the  compositions 
less  glaringly  apparent,  it  would  neither  remove  them  nor 
lessen  them  for  delicate  eyes.  The  fact  is,  the  mixture  of 
painting  and  sculpture,  or  rather  of  designs  appropriate  for  the 
one  art  or  the  other,  is  never  successful.  It  always  leaves 
something  to  be  desired,  however  skilfully  it  is  done.  And 
this  is  the  worst  defect  of  art  which  makes  the  spectator  feel 
that  in  spite  of  everything  beautiful  something  is  missing. 
Gladly  and  unconsciously  one  forgives  faults  which  to  the 

1  There  as  here  the  artists  have  been  unable  to  carve  the  legs  with- 
out resulting  confusion. 


378  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

scrutinizing  eye  may  be  no  less  apparent,  but  which  pass 
unnoticed  because  the  adequate  relation  between  conception 
and  execution  binds  the  details  of  the  composition  together 
into  one  satisfactory  whole. 

Antiquarians,  as  is  well  known,  delight  in  this  relief,  Plate 
335,  because  it  has  preserved  the  shapes  of  the  famous  seven- 
armed  candlestick  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  old  Roman  stand- 
ards. 

In  taking  a  final  glance  at  these  reliefs,  one  is  aware  of  the 
defects  that  mar  them,  but  one  cannot  withhold  from  them 
genuine  admiration.  There  is  force,  there  is  feeling,  and  that 
exquisiteness  of  artistic  temper  that  sees  beauty  even  in  the 
commonplace.  The  modelling  often  is  strong  and  fully  as 
elegant  as  that  on  the  Ara  Pads,1  but  far  removed  from  the 
coldness  which  characterized  the  earlier  monument.  On  the 
contrary,  a  genial  warmth  emanates  from  these  reliefs,  singling 
them  out  from  all  other  Roman  works  as  eminently  worthy 
of  attention  and  study. 

PLATE  336.  The  Columns  of  Trajan  and  of  Marcus  Aurelius 
Antoninus,  so-called  "  Column  of  Antonine."  Rome.  The  best 

books  on  the  Column  of  Trajan  are  W.  Frohner,  La  Colonne  Trajane  ; 
Conrad  Cichorius  (first  part  published  in  1896) ;  and  E.  Petersen,  Tra- 
jan's Dakische  Kriege  nach  dem  Saulenrelief  erzdhlt  (1899).  The 
standard  book  on  the  Column  of  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus  is  Die 
Markus  Saule  by  E.  Petersen,  A  von  Domaszewski  and  G.  Calderini. 
For  reliefs  from  this  column,  see  Plate  344.  For  a  discussion  of  the 
reliefs  of  the  column  of  Trajan,  see  F.  W.,  1926-1936. 

The  column  of  Trajan  commemorated  the  victory  of  this 
emperor  over  the  Dacians.  The  reliefs  are  history  written  in 
pictures.  Like  a  spiral  band  they  encircle  the  column,  growing 
larger  toward  the  top,  so  that  they  may  appear  more  clearly 

'See  especially  the  frontispiece. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL  ART.        379 

to  the  eye  ;  for  the  height  of  the  column  is  more  than  one 
hundred  feet.  On  the  top  stood  the  statue '  of  the  emperor 
himself.  There  are  more  than  twenty-five  hundred  human 
figures  in  the  reliefs  and  a  proportionately  large  number  of 
animals,  trees,  houses,  and  the  like.  It  is,  therefore,  no  wonder 
that  the  casual  observer  is  perplexed  and  unable  to  understand 
their  meaning.  If,  however,  the  pictures  are  studied  in  detail, 
all  confusion  disappears,  and  the  whole  eventful  campaign 
against  the  Dacians  is  seen  represented  with  a  wealth  of  detail, 
and  told  so  clearly  and  simply  that  no  written  history  could 
have  given  a  better  account  of  it. 

Welter's  summary  (F.  W.,  p.  765)  is  by  far  the  best  of  any 
modern  commentary.  He  says,  "  In  spite  of  the  tremendous 
extent  and  the  similarity  of  all  the  events  represented,  monot- 
ony and  repetition  are  happily  avoided.  On  the  contrary, 
much  variety  is  given  by  mixing  with  the  fierce  scenes  of  war- 
fare some  tenderer  subjects,  such  as  the  care  of  the  wounded, 
and  the  grief  of  the  Dacians  at  the  premature  death  of  some 
of  their  young  heroes.  The  artist  had  an  open  eye  for  things 
human.  To  be  true,  and  to  appear  to  be  so,  was  his  chief 
aim.  He,  therefore,  neither  embellished  nor  omitted  to  tell 
the  cruel  deeds  of  war.  This  makes  of  the  column  a  living, 
true  and  faithful  history  of  the  war,  such  as  does  not  exist  any- 
where else.  But  it  is  just  this  longing  to  be  clear  and  accurate 
that  has  induced  the  artist  to  stoop  to  many  reprehensible 
tricks.  He  carves  fortresses,  villages,  huts,  and  the  like  to 
show  their  plans  and  elevations ;  but,  in  order  to  do  this,  he 
had  to  design  them  unnaturally  small  and  often  in  faulty  per- 
spective. Such  defects  might  pass  unnoticed  in  a  more  child- 
ish, more  academic  mode  of  art ;  but  here,  where  complete 
mastery  of  form  is  shown  they  are  disturbing,  unpleasant.  The 

"This  statue  has  been  lost,  and  that  of  a  saint  been  substituted. 


380  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

reliefs  do  not  rise  from  the  matter-of-fact  to  the  loftier  plane 
of  inspired  artistic  representation.  They  are  prosaic,  mere 
chronicles,  and,  although  they  are  able  to  arouse  interest,  they 
do  not  stimulate.  .  .  .  The  modelling  is  not  delicate,  a  defect 
which  may,  however,  be  pardoned,  in  view  of  the  magnitude 
of  the  work,  and  the  height  at  which  the  figures  are  seen." 

The  column  of  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus  is  modelled 
after  the  column  of  Trajan.  The  style  of  the  reliefs,  however, 
is  less  fresh.  The  defects  of  the  earlier  work  are  found  in 
them  in  larger  numbers,  while  the  chief  charm  of  that  work, 
its  spontaneity  and  perspicuity,  is  lacking.  Their  modelling  is 
less  delicate  —  often  actually  crude  and  unpleasant. 

PLATE  337.  Reliefs  in  the  Forum,  Rome.  Of  marble.  Discov- 
ered in  1872.  Best  summary  of  all  discussions  and  complete  bibliog- 
raphy is  an  essay  by  Miss  A.  S.  Jenkins,  A.  J.  A.,  V,  1901,  pp.  58ff. 

Two  marble  screens,  1.75  m.  high  and  5.37  m.  long,1  were 
found  in  the  Forum  in  Rome  in  1872.  The  relief  of  the 
Suovetaurilia,  Plate  33  7a,  that  is,  sacrifice  of  the  pig  (sus) 
and  sheep  (avis)  and  bull  (/aurus),  is  the  same  on  the  inner 
sides  of  both  screens.  The  subjects  on  the  outer  sides  are 
different.  Plate  33  ?b  represents  that  of  the  western  screen. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  of  the  date  when  these 
screens  were  made,  and  the  man  in  whose  honor  they  were 
erected.  Domitian,  Trajan  and  Hadrian  are  mentioned,  but 
Trajan's  claim  2  seems  to  have  most  in  its  favor.  The  scene 
on  the  western  screen,  Plate  337b,  is  believed  to  have  refer- 
ence to  "  one  of  the  most  popular  acts  of  Trajan's  reign,  and 
one  which  was  commemorated  on  an  arch,  as  well  as  by  coins 
and  inscriptions  —  the  enlargement  (amounting  practically  to 

1  The  second  screen  lacks  the  corner  block.  2  For  a  discussion  of 
these  claims  see  the  article  by  Miss  Jenkins  referred  to  above. 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL  ART.        38x 

the  founding)  of  the  system  of  alimentation  begun  on  a  small 
scale  by  Nerva.  The  large  number  of  coins  which  refer  to  this 
system  of  relief,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  it  was  mentioned  on  a 
triumphal  arch,  show  the  great  interest  which  it  had  for  the 
people."  From  the  Rostra,1  the  speaker's  platform  in  the 
Forum,  the  emperor  appears  to  be  making  the  declaration. 
The  people  in  front  are  raising  their  arms  in  joyful  approval, 
while  in  the  center  the  emperor  appears  again,  seated  like  a 
god 2  on  a  raised  platform,  while  in  front  of  him  stands  the 
allegorical  figure  of  a  woman  in  Greek  garb,  holding  a  child  in 
her  arms,  and  probably  leading  another  by  her  right  hand. 
This  group  doubtless  is  intended  to  show  the  emperor  as 
introducing  by  his  benevolent  act  the  goddess  of  Plenty  into 
Rome. 

The  fig-tree 3  and  the  statue  of  Marsyas,  both  famous  land- 
marks, designate  the  place  as  the  Forum.  Both  are  sur- 
rounded by  square  enclosures,  which  to-day,  when  the  color 
that  told  the  story  has  faded,  appear  to  be  bases.4 

The  background  of  both  reliefs  contains  buildings  and 
columns.  The  attempt  to  identify  them  with  definite  build- 
ings on  the  Forum  has  not  been  entirely  successful. 

The  state  of  preservation  of  these  screens  makes  it  difficult 
to  discuss  their  style,  except  in  reference  to  their  general  de- 
sign. The  western  screen,  Plate  33  yb,  is  the  more  interesting 
of  the  two,  and  is  extremely  clever.  The  masses  are  well  bal- 

1  The  present  theory  is  that  these  screens  once  formed  part  of  the 
Rostra.  2  Compare  him  with  Asklepios,  Plate  241,  and  notice  the 
greater  skill  of  the  Greek  artist  in  casting  his  figure  in  pleasing  lines. 
3  The  Ruminalian  fig-tree  where  the  wolf  with  Romulus  and  Remus  was 
erected  in  295  B.  C.  See  the  discussion  to  Plate  3250.  •'They  are  ex- 
plained as  enclosures  by  Hiilsen,  Rom.  Mitth.,  1892,  p.  287.  Miss 
Jenkins'  arguments  against  this  view,  A.  J.  A.,  V,  1901,  p.  77,  are  not 
convincing. 


382  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

anced,  and  unity,  at  least  in  appearance,  is  preserved  in  spite 
of  the  double *  incidents  which  the  artist  desired  to  portray. 
Studied  in  detail,  the  poses  of  a  number  of  figures  are  too 
studied  to  be  lifelike,  while  the  introduction  of  a  local  back- 
ground, and  the  mixture  of  reality  in  the  group  to  the  left,  and 
allegory  in  the  group  in  the  center,  show  that  this  artist,  like 
all  his  compatriots,  either  did  not  know  the  limitations  of  the 
art  of  sculpture,  or  believed  that  he  could  transgress  them 
with  impunity.  Considering,  however,  the  fact  that  he  was 
expected  to  carve  a  memento  of  actual  events,  a  task  which 
does  not  lend  itself  to  an  artistic  treatment,  he  must  be  said 
to  have  acquitted  himself  well. 

PLATE  338.    Reliefs  from  the  Triumphal  Arch  of   Trajan   in 

Beneventum.  For  the  literature  on  triumphal  arches  see  above,  the 
discussion  to  Plate  334.  For  the  political  importance  of  the  reliefs 
from  Beneventum  see  A.  von  Domaszewski,  Jh.  Oesterr.  Arch.  Inst.  II, 
1899,  pp.  I73ff. 

The  date  of  this  arch  is  114  A.  D.  Both  reliefs,  Plate  338, 
are  taken  from  the  inner  archway,  and  represent  the  distri- 
bution of  victuals  to  the  Romans,  Plate  3383,  and  Trajan 
sacrificing  to  Jupiter,  Plate  338b.  Trajan  on  this  slab  appears 
with  the  toga  over  his  head2  like  Augustus,  Plate  332b.  It  is, 
therefore,  interesting  to  compare  these  two  reliefs.  The 
shadowy  figures  on  the  background  in  Florence  have  here  as- 
sumed definite  shapes  by  crowding  the  figures  in  front  and 
raising  the  relief  in  which  those  further  back  are  carved  until 
their  heads  —  their  only  visible  parts  —  stand  out  boldly. 
Wherever  space  permitted,  silhouettes  were  introduced  still 

1  Ghiberti,  on  his  bronze  gates  in  Florence,  was  equally  skilful  in 
combining  more  than  one  scene  in  every  one  of  his  panels.  2  See  also 
the  statue,  Plate  328. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       383 

further  back,  so  that  the  crowd  seemed  to  extend  not  only 
from  left  to  right,  but  also  from  the  front  to  the  back.  This 
seeming  mass  of  people  is  well  handled.  It  is  broken  up  in 
pleasing  groups,  three  standing  near  the  emperor  and  three 
others  behind  these.  All  are  looking  toward  the  emperor, 
who  thus  becomes  the  center  of  the  design,  although  he  does 
not  hold  the  center  of  the  composition.  This  was  desirable,1 
for  going  through  the  arch,  the  spectator  could  keep  his  eye 
on  the  most  important  person  uninterruptedly  until  he  had 
almost  passed  the  arch. 

In  both  reliefs,  Plates  338a  and  b,  the  existence  of  an 
actual  background  is  denied,  while  space,  air,  has  been  sub- 
stituted. The  applied  color,  now  lost,  may  once  have  assisted 
the  desired  illusion.  It  indicates  that  here  also  the  sculptor 
did  not  know  the  limitations  of  his  art.  He  was  a  painter 
rather  than  a  sculptor,  and  forgot  to  reckon  with  the  actual 
shadows  of  figures  carved  in  bold  relief.  On  the  slab,  Plate 
338a,  this  defect  is  most  apparent,  because  the  heads  of  the 
men  in  front  are  lost  and  the  heads  of  the  back  row  combine 
in  a  weird  fashion  with  the  trunks  in  front. 

The  perfect  order  of  both  compositions  deserves  high 
praise,  while  the  treatment  of  individual  figures  is  equally 
admirable.  They  are  made  subservient  to  the  idea  of  the 
whole,  but  are,  when  studied  by  themselves,  not  void  of  inter- 
est. A  few  excellent  portrait  heads,  especially  those  in  low 
relief  Plate  338a  reveal  the  real  force  of  the  artist. 

PLATE  339.  Trajan  and  his  Suite.  Of  marble.  Lateran  Mu- 
seum, Rome.  Discovered,  together  with  three  fragments  of  a  frieze 
probably  in  the  reign  of  Pope  Clement  VIII  (1592-1605)  near  the 
Forum  of  Trajan  in  Rome.  Restorations  :  the  head  of  the  emperor 

1  Cf.  above  Plates  334  and  335. 


384  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

(the  second  figure  from  the  right)  and  the  head  of  the  smaller  figure 
immediately  behind  him,  also  the  right  hand  of  the  emperor.  Helbig, 
627. 

The  fact  that  this  relief  was  found  near  the  Forum  of  Trajan 
and  that  its  style  conforms '  to  the  age  of  that  emperor  has 
induced  the  restorer,  who  is  said  to  have  been  Thorwaldsen, 
to  add  to  the  figure  of  the  emperor  the  portrait  head  of 
Trajan,  while  he  has  given  the  head  of  Hadrian  to  the  young 
man  behind  him. 

The  grouping  of  the  figures  is  done  with  exquisite  skill,  so 
that  one  takes  pleasure  in  contemplating  them,  not  to  speak 
of  the  interest  which  one  takes  in  the  strong,  clean-cut  faces. 
The  customary  Roman  mistake  of  carving  faces  in  extremely 
low  relief  on  the  background  is  here  less  patent,  although  not 
absent ;  it  is  most  noticeable  in  the  bearded  face  to  the  left. 

PLATE  340.    Two  Reliefs  probably  of  the  Age  of  Hadrian.    Of 

marble.  Palazzo  dei  Conservatori,  Rome.  These  reliefs  once  decor- 
ated a  triumphal  arch  near  the  church  of  S.  Lorenzo,  known  as  the 
Arco  di  Portogallo.  This  arch  was  removed  to  widen  the  Corso  in 
1662,  and  the  reliefs  were  transferred  to  the  Palazzo  dei  Conservatori. 
The  restorations  on  Plate  340  are  very  numerous.  They  include  the 
head,  the  right  forearm  and  the  left  hand  of  the  principal  figure ;  the 
noses  and  right  forearms  of  the  bearded  men  behind  the  emperor ;  and 
also  the  right  arm  and  spear  of  the  lower  of  the  two ;  the  front  part  of 
the  face  of  the  boy ;  the  end  of  the  nose,  the  right  forearm  and  the 
fingers  of  the  left  hand,  but  not  the  thumb  of  the  young  man;  the  tip 
of  the  nose  of  the  beardless  man  in  the  background ;  and  some  frag- 
ments of  the  temple.  The  restorations  on  Plate  34ob  include :  the 
head  and  neck  of  the  empress  borne  to  heaven ;  almost  all  the  right 
wing,  the  left  forearm,  and  most  of  the  torch  of  the  winged  figure  ;  the 
upper  part  of  the  head  with  the  ear  and  wreath,  the  nose,  and  the  fin- 


1  Compare  it  with  Plate  337b. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       385 

gers  of  the  right  hand  of  the  emperor;  the  nose,  the  upper  lip,  and 
the  right  hand  of  the  young  man  seated  hi  front  of  the  pyre.  Helbig, 
550  and  549. 

The  Korinthian  temple  in  the  background,  Plate  34ob,  which 
was  believed  to  have  reference  to  Marcus  Aurelius  (see  Plate 
344)  induced  the  restorer  to  give  to  the  modern  head  of  the 
chief  figure  the  features  of  that  emperor.  Owing  to  this  mis- 
take, the  likeness  of  the  head  on  the  other  relief,  Plate  34ob, 
of  which  only  the  top  is  modern,  passed  unnoticed  for  years. 
It  is  a  head  of  Hadrian.1  In  consequence  it  may  be  assumed 
that  both  reliefs  and  the  arch  which  they  once  adorned  date 
from  his  reign. 

In  the  relief,  Plate  34ob,  Hadrian  decrees  the  apotheosis, 
that  is,  the  divine  honors,  of  an  empress,2  who  at  once  is 
borne  from  her  funeral  pyre  by  the  genius  of  Eternity  to  take 
her  place  among  the  gods  in  heaven.  The  reclining  figure 
may  be  the  personification  of  the  Campus  Martius,  where  the 
corpses  of  the  imperial  family  were  burned.  Such  allegorical 
figures  were  frequent  in  Roman  art ;  many  of  them  are  seen 
on  the  column  of  Trajan.  In  general  pose  the  Campus  Mar- 
tius suggests  the  so-called  Theseus  of  the  East  Pediment  of 
the  Parthenon,  Plate  137. 

The  subject  of  the  companion  relief,  Plate  3403,  is  uncer- 
tain. The  emperor  seems  to  be  promulgating  some  decree. 


1  See  the  bust  of  Hadrian,  Plate  429^     Hadrian  was  the  first  em- 
peror to  wear  a  beard.     Beards  were  already  worn  in  the  time  of  Tra- 
jan, see  Plate  339;  but  long  beards  do  not  seem  to  have  been  in  vogue 
until  later. 

2  Hadrian  decreed  the  apotheosis  of  two  empresses, —  of  Plotina,  wife 
of  Trajan,  who  died  in  129  A.  D.,  and  of  Sabina,  his  own  wife,  who 
died  in  136  A.  D.     The  head  of  the  empress  in  the  relief  is  restored, 
so  that  it  is  impossible  to  state  who  she  is. 


386  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

His  audience  is  typified  by  only  three  figures,  of  which  the 
larger,  only  half-draped  youth  in  the  foreground  is  believed  to 
be  allegorical.  A  comparison  of  this  relief  with  the  left  hand 
portion  of  the  screen,  Plate  33  yb,  results  decidedly  in  favor 
of  the  earlier  work.  The  life  and  excellent  grouping  of  that 
relief  are  conspicuously  absent-  here.  Individually  the  figures 
are  not  without  interest,  but  they  fail  to  supplement  each  other 
successfully  as  members  of  an  organic  whole.  The  artist  lacks 
breadth  of  vision ;  he  is  unwilling  to  sacrifice  details  for  the 
sake  of  an  artistic  ensemble.  The  two  allegorical  figures, 
Plates  34oa  and  b,  resemble  in  style  the  smooth,  uninspired 
treatment  of  forms  characteristic  of  the  many  statues  which 
Hadrian  erected  to  this  favorite  Antinoos.1 

This  academic  interest  in  form  was  diametrically  opposed  to 
the  realistic,  almost  illusionistic  style  of  sculpture  which  was 
in  vogue  at  that  time.  Its  introduction  has  "  a  taste  of  the 
end ;  "  it  ushers  in  the  decline. 

PLATE  341.  Apotheosis  Of  Antoninus  and  Faustina.  Of  Car- 
rara marble.  Giardino  della  Pigna,  Vatican.  Discovered,  together  with 
the  remains  of  the  column  of  Antoninus  Pius,  in  1704,  near  Monte  Cit- 
orio  in  Rome.  F.  W.,  1939. 

This  relief  once  adorned  the  back  of  the  base  of  a  column 
which  in  161  A.  D.  was  erected  in  honor  of  Antoninus  Pius 
by  his  sons.  The  subject  is  similar  to  that  of  the  relief,  Plate 
34ob,  except  that  here  two  people,  Antoninus  and  his  wife 
Faustina,  are  carried  off  to  heaven  by  the  genius  of  Eternity, 
and  that  the  place  of  the  emperor  decreeing  to  them  this 
honor  is  taken  by  the  goddess  Roma.  The  reclining  figure  is 
generally  interpreted  as  the  allegorical  representation  of  the 
Campus  Martius,  where  the  corpses  of  the  royal  dead  were 

'See  Plates 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       387 

burned,  but  may  be  intended  to  be  the  Tiber '  winding  around 
the  Campus  Martius.  Perhaps  this  is  indicated  by  his  left 
arm  holding  the  obelisk,  which  was  erected  there. 

Although  slightly  better  in  grouping  than  the  earlier  relief, 
Plate  34ob,  the  composition  here  is  even  less  satisfactory  in 
respect  to  individual  figures,  except  Roma  and  the  Tiber, 
both  of  which  probably  are  copies  or  adaptations  of  Greek 
works.  The  winged  genius  is  much  less  characteristic  than  the 
same  figure  on  Plate  34ob,  and  the  position  of  the  emperor 
and  empress  enthroned  on  his  wings  is  almost  ridiculous  in  its 
stiff  inappropriateness  to  the  idea  of  flight,  the  eagles  on  their 
right  and  left,  which  are  crowding  the  space,  actually  prevent- 
ing the  illusion  of  flight.  The  entire  composition  contains 
nothing  original  that  does  not  give  signs  of  impending  decline. 

PLATES  342  and  343.  Reliefs  from  the  Column  of  Marcus 
Aurellus  Antoninus,  called  the  Column  of  Antonine.  Rome.  See 
Plate  336b. 

These  three  reliefs,  representing  the  arrival  of  the  emperor 
in  a  village,  the  decapitation  of  noble  Germans,  Plate  34  2b, 
and  the  miraculous  rain,  Plate  343,  are  taken  from  the  column 
of  Marcus  Aurelius,  Plate  336b.  As  stated  above,  this  column 
is  modelled  after  that  of  Trajan.  What  was  said  in  reference 
to  the  reliefs  of  that  column,  Plate  3363,  is  true  also  of  these 
reliefs,  with  the  exception  that  the  points  of  excellence  are 
fewer  and  the  defects  much  more  marked.  The  ridiculous 
smallness  of  the  buildings  is  at  its  worst  on  the  slab,  Plate 
3423,  which  also  shows  all  the  ridiculousness  of  inaccurate 
perspective.  Some  of  the  figures,  however,  are  not  without 
charm.  The  dismounted  emperor  is  dignified,  and  the  native 
woman  with  her  child  running  away  from  the  conqueror  is 

1  For  representations  of  the  Tiber  see  the  discussion  to  Plate  278. 


3*8       GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

sufficiently  well  characterized  to  arouse  interest.  The  other 
slab,  Plate  342!),  is  nothing  but  a  descriptive  picture  of  a 
historic  event.  Neither  in  itS  treatment  nor  in  the  selection 
of  the  moment  for  representation  has  the  man  who  carved  it 
shown  that  he  had  any  claim  to  be  called  an  artist. 

PLATE  344.    Two  Reliefs  of  a  Monument  in  Honor  of  Marcus 

AureliUS  Antoninus.  Palazzo  del  Conservator*,  Rome.  Formerly  in 
the  Church  of  S.  Martina,  and  since  1515  on  the  capitol.  "They  are 
so  high  up,  and  covered  with  such  a  coat  of  dust,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
distinguish  the  restorations."  Helbig,  544  and  546. 

Marcus  Aurelius  in  the  relief,  Plate  3443,  bears  a  striking 
resemblance  to  the  equestrian  statue  of  the  same  emperor  on 
the  Piazza  del  Campidoglio,  Plate  428.'  The  barbarians  — 
craving  for  mercy  —  cannot  be  identified,  since  Marcus  Aure- 
lius continued  an  almost  uninterrupted  warfare  with  the  Mar- 
comanni,  the  Quadi  and  the  Sarmatian  Jazygi.  The  grouping 
of  the  relief  is  fairly  well  done.  Only  in  the  case  of  the  horse- 
man behind  the  emperor,  does  the  artist  reveal  his  ignorance 
as  to  what  parts  of  the  horse  and  the  rider  he  ought  to  carve, 
and  what  parts  he  could  safely  leave  to  the  imagination.  If 
he  had  omitted  this  horseman  and,  together  with  him,  all  the 
figures  in  the  background,  his  composition  would  have  been 
the  better  for  it.  Relief  sculpture  can  do  justice  only  to 
simple  designs  developing  in  one  direction. 

For  this  reason  the  other  relief,  Plate  344b,  is  more  satisfac- 
tory, although  the  figure  of  the  emperor  is  much  less  interest- 
ing. He  has  pulled  his  toga  over  his  head,2  but  is  in  no  other 
way  distinguished  from  the  man  behind  him. 


1  The  resemblance  would  be  even  more  striking  if  Plate  428  gave  a 
view  from  the  right  side  of  the  statue. 

2  Compare  for  this  custom  the  remarks  to  Plate  328. 


ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.        389 

The  modelling  is  fairly  good  on  both  reliefs,  although  the 
half-nude  figure  behind  the  bull  and  its  inaccurate  proportions 
and  muscles  indicate  that  knowledge  of  the  human  body  had 
begun  to  belong  to  the  past.  Unlike  the  Greeks,  the  Romans 
rarely  had  an  opportunity  to  carve  other  than  draped  figures. 

The  accessories  and  the  background  have  received  much 
attention  everywhere.  The  temple,  Plate  344b,  is  the  temple 
of  Jupiter  in  Rome. 

PLATE  345.  Triumphal  Arch  of  Septimius  Severus.  Rome. 
For  the  literature  on  triumphal  arches  see  the  notes  to  Plate  334. 

This  arch  was  built  in  203  A.  D.,  and  although  its  architec- 
ture is  still  imposing  and  indicative  of  the  strength  and  skill  of 
the  Romans  in  this  branch  of  art,  its  reliefs  show  that  the 
sculptors  have  continued  on  the  downward  road  which  they 
had  begun  to  travel  under  Hadrian.  Considered,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  merely  decorative  bits  of  pleasing  bossiness  the  reliefs 
fill  their  places  well.  Sculptors  as  artists  of  independent  ideas 
belong  to  the  past. 

PLATES  346  and  347.  Reliefs  from  the  Triumphal  Arch  of  Con- 
Stantine  in  Rome.  For  a  complete  set  of  the  medallions  on  the  Arch 
of  Constantine,  see  Antike  Denkmdler  I,  Plates  42  and  43. 

This  arch  was  built  in  315  A.  D.,  when  architects  were  still 
able  to  do  creditable  work,  but  when  the  last  spark  of  art  had 
vanished  from  all  pieces  of  sculpture.  Of  the  slabs  reproduced 
on  Plates  346  and  347  only  Plate  34  yc  is  an  original  of  the  age 
of  Constantine,  all  the  others  are  taken  from  monuments  of 
Trajan,  and  conform  to  the  style  in  vogue  during  the  reign  of 
that  emperor.1  The  pitiable  depth  to  which  sculpture  had 
sunk  under  Constantine  is  best  seen  in  Plate  34 yc.  This  slab2 

1  See  Plates  336£f.     2  Contrast  it  with  Plates  337 b. 


39°  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

is  void  of  inspiration  and  the  chastening  influence  of  the  good 
sculpture  of  the  past.  It  marks  the  end.  Sculpture  could 
not  sink  lower.  Historians,  therefore,  are  right  when  they 
date  the  end  of  the  old  and  the  beginning  of  a  new  art  in  the 
century  of  Constantine.  The  antique  had  run  its  course.  It 
had  no  further  message  for  the  people,  and  a  new  order  of 
things  had  to  arise  to  stir  again  those  nobler  emotions  of 
men  to  which  alone  good  art  appeals. 

PLATE  348.     Part  of  the  Frieze  of  the  Temple  of  Minerva. 

Forum  of  Nerva.  Rome.  Middleton,  The  Remains  of  Ancient  Rome 
(1892),  Vol.  II,  pp.  2 iff.  A  restoration  of  the  temple  is  given  in  Ziegler, 
Das  alte  Rom.,  Plate  VII,  fig.  i,  and  a  view  of  the  temple  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  ibidem  Plate  VII,  fig.  3. 

The  temple  of  Minerva,  built  during  the  reign  of  Nerva, 
96-98  A.  D.,  remained  almost  intact  down  to  1606,  when 
Pope  Paul  V  despoiled  it  for  the  sake  of  his  new  chapel  of 
S.  Paul  in  the  Basilica  of  S.  Maria  Maggiore.  But  even  the 
few  extant  remains  are  able  to  give  one  an  idea  of  the  rich 
decorative  quality  of  the  art  of  architecture  in  Rome  in  the 
first  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Most  of  the  sculptured 
pieces  have  disappeared,  but  the  fragments  of  the  frieze  suffice 
to  show  that  they  were  made  by  men  of  mark.  They  are 
graceful  in  lines  and  interesting  in  composition.  The  figures 
are  posed  with  delicate  skill  and  are  thoughtful  in  design. 
They  are  more  Greek  in  feeling  than  the  secular  reliefs,  but 
like  them  give  evidence  of  the  spirit  of  the  time  —  the  intro- 
duction of  the  pictorial  element  in  sculpture.  This  is  best 
seen  in  the  drapery  on  the,  background '  behind  the  group  to 
the  right  on  Plate  348,  in  the  perspective  of  the  design  of 
the  seated  figure  in  the  center,  and  in  the  supposed  air  as 
background  for  the  third  figure  from  the  left  turning  her  back 
to  the  spectator. 

'Compare  Plates  310  and  315. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  NATIONAL   ART.       391 

The  only  marked  defects  of  the  frieze  are  the  hands  which 
are  carved  on  the  background.  These,  however,  were  not 
seen  from  below  and  were,  therefore,  intentionally  slighted  by 
the  artists.  In  every  other  respect  the  frieze  compares  well 
with  the  reliefs  which  are  generally  dated  in  the  Hellenistic 
Period  of  Greek  art.  If  the  date  of  the  temple  were  not 
known,  and  the  frieze  were  taken  from  its  setting,  many  people 
would  probably  deny  its  Roman  origin,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  too  good.  These  remains,  therefore,  may  teach  one 
caution,  and  suggest  that  possibly  many  pieces  of  sculpture 
known  as  late  Greek  are  Roman. 


392 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART  NINE. 


Grave  Reliefs. 

The  custom  of  the  Greeks  of  erecting  memorial  tablets  on 
tombs  dates  back  to  the  Mycenaean  age.1  At  first  these  tablets 
were  simple  and  not  always  sculptured.  The  decoration  was 
only  painted.2  Later  the  figures  were  carved.  The  majority 
of  the  earlier  reliefs  contained  only  one  figure,3  but  gradually 
more  figures  were  introduced,  until  the  entire  space  of  the 
fa£ade  of  a  building,  into  which  the  simple  slab  had  developed, 
was  filled  with  figures.  Toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  century 
tombs  had  begun  to  be  so  luxurious  that  Demetrios  Phalereus 
carried  a  law  «  forbidding  them.  Only  small  columns,  or  slabs 
raised  in  the  shape  of  tables,  or  urns  of  stone  $  were  per- 
mitted. This  law,  it  seems,  continued  in  force  so  that  no 
grave  reliefs  of  importance  date  later  than  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  before  Christ.  • 

By  many  modern  writers  all  grave  reliefs  are  called  stelai. 
It  is,  however,  doubtful  whether  the  ancients  called  any  but 
those  of  the  shape  of  Plate  349  by  that  name,  except  in  a 
general  way.6 

'See  the  discussion  to  Plate  5.  2Good  color  reproduction  of  a 
painted  stele,  A.  J.  A.,  Plate  XVII.  3The  so-called  Spartan  tomb- 
stones mark  an  exception.  On  these  tombstones  see  J.  H.  S.,  V,p.  129. 
4  Cicero,  De  Legibus  11,26.  s  See  Plate  377.  6A  further  distinction 
must  be  made  between  those  reliefs  which  were  erected  on  the  tombs 
and  those  dedicated  somewhere  in  commemoration  of  the  dead.  The 
latter  were  generally  broader  than  they  were  high,  while  the  opposite 
was  true  of  the  reliefs  placed  on  graves. 


GRAVE  RELIEFS.  393 

The  large  number  of  extant  grave  reliefs  offers  an  excellent 
opportunity  of  acquainting  oneself  with  the  Greek  attitude  to- 
ward death.  This,  however,  is  a  study '  slightly  outside  the 
realm  of  art  and  must,  therefore,  be  passed  by  here  with  the 
mere  mention,  although  it  is  a  study  of  absorbing  interest. 

On  Plates  349-354  some  of  the  simple  grave  reliefs  are  re- 
produced. Those  of  Aristion,  made  by  Aristokles,  Plate- 35oa, 
and  of  the  unknown  man,  made  by  Alxenor,  Plate  349a,  be- 
long to  the  Archaic  Period.  The  monument  of  Agathokles, 
Plate  35ob,  is  carved  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  principles 
of  relief  sculpture  that  characterizes  the  Parthenon  frieze, 
while  the  woman,  Plate  35 4b,  seems  to  stand  under  fourth 
century  influences.  The  continuation  through  many  centuries 
of  the  simple  early  slabs  as  grave  monuments  is  therefore 
proved. 

Some  beautiful  fragments  of  archaic  stelai  are  reproduced 
on  Plates  351  and  352.  The  head,  Plate  353,  belonged  to  a 
monument  similar  to  the  Alxenor  stele,  Plate  3493,  but 
superior  to  it  in  modelling.  It  reminds  one  of  the  "  Idolino," 
Plate  123.  The  resemblance  between  the  two  reliefs  on  Plate 
349  is  noteworthy.  The  earlier  monument,  in  spite  of  its 
faulty  drawing,  possesses  a  charm  not  found  in  the  later  stele 
in  Naples.  Alxenor  for  the  first  time  endeavored  to  express 
sentiment.  Fully  aware  of  the  nobility  of  his  purpose  and, 
like  all  his  contemporaries,  cheerfully  unconcerned  about  his 
halting  skill,  he  proudly  declared  in  an  inscription,  "  Alxenor 
of  Naxos  made  me.  Just  look  at  me  !  "  The  Naples  relief  is 
a  late  adaptation  of  the  Alxenor  design.  Its  skill,  revealed  in 
the  modelling,  ill  agrees  with  its  faulty  design,  and  although 
the  artist  has  introduced  changes  to  avoid  the  most  glaring 
defects  he  has  been  unable  to  carve  a  satisfactory  figure. 

1  The  best  book  on  the  subject  is  Percy  Gardner,  Sculptured  Tombs 
of  Hellas. 


394  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

In  the  stelai  of  single  figures  the  desire  seems  to  tend  grad- 
ually away  from  quiet  poses  to  figures  in  motion,  like  that  of 
Aristonautes,  Plate  35  7,  which  belongs  in  the  fourth  century. 
This  was  in  keeping  with  the  general  tendencies  of  Greek  art. 

Seated  figures  also  were  frequent.  They  occur  in  the  very 
old  so-called  Spartan  tombstones,  several  of  which  were  found 
near  Sparta  and  one  of  which  is  reproduced  on  Plate  3673.' 
Single  seated  figures  of  men  are  not  known,  while  those  of 
women  are  frequent.  The  relief  of  Philis,  Plate  355,  is  one 
of  the  best,  and  gives  evidence  of  the  singular  charm  of  this 
class  of  monuments.  In  later  grave  reliefs  the  importance  of 
the  personality  fades  before  the  portrayal  of  its  relation  to 
other  members  of  the  family.  In  early  times  the  introduction 
of  several  figures  on  the  slab  is  rare.  An  instance  is  given  on 
Plate  36  7b,2  which,  owing  to  its  resemblance,  in  style,  to  the 
frieze  of  the  "  Harpy"  monument,  Plate  53,  must  be  dated  in 
the  Archaic  Period.  Noteworthy  is  the  workbasket  under  the 
chair,  to  show  that  this  woman  had  been  an  industrious  house- 
wife. A  similar  basket,  it  is  believed,  ought  to  be  substituted 
for  the  rock  in  the  so-called  Penelope,  Plate  74. 

Likewise  to  the  Archaic  Period  belongs  the  fragment  of  the 
stele  of  two  women  from  Pharsalos  in  Thessaly,  Plate  358. 
The  careful  balance  of  masses  and  the  effort  to  avoid  repeti- 
tion reveals  the  sculptor  as  a  thoughtful  man,  the  equal  of  that 
artist  who  carved  the  reliefs  from  Thasos,  Plate  54.  Both  lived 
in  the  northern  part  of  Greece.  Truly  admirable  is  the  dis- 
position of  the  three  arms  and  hands  in  the  center,  and  the 
variety  introduced  by  means  of  a  slight  difference  of  pose  in 
the  otherwise  similar  heads. 


1  For  a  discussion  of  this  relief,  its  technical  defects,  and  its  attempt 
at  perspective  see  E.  von  Mach,  pp.  124!?.  2  Notice  the  "  perspective  " 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  three  standing  figures. 


GRAVE  RELIEFS.  395 

The  three  reliefs,  Plates  359-361,  show  sufficient  resem- 
blance to  each  other  to  be  all  three  patterned  after  the  same 
general  design.  Like  modern  funeral  sculpture,  ancient  grave 
reliefs  were  rarely  original  in  design ;  but  rather  combinations 
of  stock  patterns,1  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  occasion. 
Only  in  the  relief  of  Hegeso,  Plate  359,  have  the  figures  been 
combined  to  a  harmonious  whole.  An  exaggerated  attention 
to  details,  and  the  desire  of  expressing  sentiment  by  means  of 
figures  designed  fora  different  purpose,  have  somewhat  spoiled 
the  relief,  Plate  360 ;  while  the  untrained  and  somewhat  crude 
taste  of  a  stone-cutter  seems  to  be  revealed  in  Plate  361. 

The  relief  of  Hegeso,  Plate  359,  with  figures  dating  about 
the  time  of  the  Olympian  sculptures,  Plates  84ff.  —  compare 
the  standing  figure  with  the  woman,  Plate  89  —  is  one  of  the 
earliest 2  in  which  the  simple  slab  has  developed  into  the  facade 
of  a  building.  Gradually  the  side  pilasters  were  made  more 
and  more  prominent,  so  that  the  depth  of  the  monument  re- 
quired figures  either  in  very  high  relief  or  almost  in  the  round 
instead  of  the  former  figures  in  low  relief.  Generally  speak- 
ing, the  deep-frame  monuments  belong  to  the  fourth  century, 
the  low-frame  reliefs  to  the  fifth  century. 

The  fragment  of  a  beautiful  grave  relief  of  men,  contain- 
ing two  figures,  is  reproduced  on  Plate  362.  The  strong 
straight  lines  of  the  tall,  almost  deified  youth,  contrast  well 
with  the  sorrowful  droop  of  those  of  the  little  slave  at  his 
side.  The  presence  of  his  pet  on  the  pillar  adds  a  touch 

1  For  a  stele  of  the  Hegeso  stele  type,  but  with  the  figure  inverted, 
see  A.  J.  A.,  VIII,  1904,  p.  103,  and  for  a  duplicate  of  the  girl  on  the 
stele  in  Berlin,  Plate  354a;  for  a  stele  in  the  Palazzo  Giustiniani  see 
Ant.  Denkmaler  I,  Plate  33.  2  Such  a  fa9ade  had  been  noticed  in  the 
monument  of  Aristonautes,  Plate  357,  which  in  this  discussion  was 
mentioned  earlier  than  the  Hegeso  relief,  because  it  contained  only 
one  figure.  Chronologically  it  is  much  later. 


396  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

of  sentiment,  the  more  impressive  as  no  trace  of  it  is 
noticeable  in  the  figure  of  the  dead  himself.  The  grouping 
of  the  relief  is  skilful.  In  his  endeavor  to  avoid  too  many 
empty  places,  the  artist  has  made  use  of  one  of  the  devices 
of  his  predecessor,  Plate  36ya ;  he  has  extended  the  arm 
of  the  chief  figure.  In  the  Athenian  relief  this  is  so  well 
done  that  the  device  is  not  apparent;  in  the  Spartan  tomb- 
stone, on  the  other  hand,  it  is  unduly  prominent.  The 
important  thing,  however,  is  that  in  both  cases  the  artists 
were  prompted  to  do  what  they  did  by  exactly  the  same 
motive.  Even  the  early  sculptor  felt  the  force  of  the 
requirements  of  a  composition  that  should  please  the  eye. 
Deep  feeling  shows  in  the  two  reliefs,  Plates  363  and 
369,  both  of  about  the  same  date,  the  fourth  century 
before  Christ.  The  latter  relief,  which  is  perhaps  the  most 
impressive  of  all  extant  Greek  reliefs,  is  so  simple  in 
design  and  yet  so  wonderfully  true  to  the  emotion  por- 
trayed, that  it  may  well  rank  as  one  of  the  masterpieces  of 
the  world.  The  old  man  eagerly  looking  at  the  youth  in 
whose  honor  the  monument  was  erected,  reminds  one  of 
the  words  of  the  German  poet  Lenau : 

Sein  liebes  Bild  sich  recht  in's  treue  Herz  zu  shauen. 

In  the   other  relief,  Plate   360,    the   result    is    much   less 
satisfactory. 

Very  different  in  thought  are  the  reliefs,  Plates  364-366. 
Here  the  dead  are  seen  on  horseback.  Plate  365  is  the 
monument  of  Dexileos,  who  fell  in  the  Korinthian  war 
early  in  the  fourth  century.  The  monument  represents  him, 
with  pardonable  disregard  for  truth,  as  the  victor  in  the 
conflict.  Very  spirited  and  less  constrained  in  space, 
because  the  youth  has  jumped  from  his  horse,  is  the  second 


GRAVE  RELIEFS.  397 

relief,  Plate  366.  The  third  relief,  Plate  364,  shows  the 
youth  not  in  battle,  but  on  a  pleasure  ride.  The  repre- 
sentation is  noteworthy  because  the  rider  carries  a  riding- 
whip,  an  unusual  thing  for  a  Greek  horseman. 

The  remaining  monuments  of  this  series,  Plates  368  and 
370-374,  represent  family  scenes,  which  by  many  touches 
of  individuality  are  made  extremely  interesting  objects  of 
study,  although  these  touches  not  rarely  disturb  the  beauty 
of  the  composition.  This  is  most  especially  true  of  the 
tilted  chair,  Plate  368,  and  the  small  figure  crowded  into 
the  design,  Plates  373  and  374.  Very  charming  is  Plate 
371,  the  little  slave-girl  fastening  the  sandal  of  her  mis- 
tress and  the  woman  tenderly  touching  her  head.1 

From  first  to  last  all  these  grave  reliefs  appear  to  be 
inspired  by  works  which  are  of  greater  importance  than 
they  themselves.  The  connection  of  Plate  35ob  with  the 
Parthenon,  of  Plate  367b  with  the  "  Harpy  "  monument, 
and  of  Plate  353  with  the  school  of  Polykleitos,  has  been 
noted  above.  The  horsemen,  Plates  365  and  366,  are 
more  or  less  influenced  by  the  Parthenon  and  other  temple 
sculptures.  A  comparison  of  the  Dexileos  monument  with 
the  Amazon  from  Epidauros,  Plate  242,  is  very  instructive. 
'The  youth,  Plate  369,  reminds  one  of  Skopadean  works, 
and  Plate  371  may  reproduce  a  motive  from  Olympia. 

With  Plate  376  we  enter  on  an  entirely  different  kind  of 
grave  monuments,  in  which  the  representation  of  the  dead 
has  no  place.  The  two  seated  figures  in  Berlin  are  repre- 

1  This  motive  is  interesting  because  it  offers  a  parallel  to  a  sug- 
gested transposition  of  figures  on  the  East  Pediment  of  the  Temple  of 
Zeus  in  Olympia,  by  means  of  which  the  crouching  maiden  is  placed 
close  to  one  of  the  standing  women,  whose  sandals  she  is  supposed  to 
have  just  finished  arranging. 


398  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

sentations  of  women  mourning  at  the  grave ;  while  the 
vases,  Plate  377  and  Text  Illustration  43,  by  their  shape 
indicate  that  the  dead  whose  graves  they  decorate  had 
died  unmarried.  It  was  customary  with  the  Greeks  to 
carry  the  water  for  the  bridal  bath  in  such  vases.  When 
the  young  people  died  before  marriage,  a  stone  vase  was 
placed  on  their  graves.  Reliefs  might  be  carved  on  them 
or  they  might  be  otherwise  decorated,  as  for  instance  the 
vase,  Text  Illustration  43. 

The  sarcophagi,  reserved  for  people  of  princely  station, 
of  which  Plates  378-386  reproduce  a  few1  of  the  most 
famous,  offer  an  interesting  study.  For  the  decoration  of 
most  of  them  the  best  sculptors  were  employed.  The 
designs  are  almost  uniformly  exquisite,  from  the  so-called 
Sarcophagus  of  the  Satrap,  Plate  378,  in  the  first  half  of 
the  fifth  century,  to  the  so-called  Alexander  Sarcophagus,2 
Plates  379ff.,  not  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. One  of  the  most  masterful  compositions,  truly  Greek 
in  its  simplicity,  decorates  the  Sarcophagus  of  the  Mourn- 
ing Women,  Plates  385  and  386.* 

The  study  of  Greek  grave  reliefs  may  not  teach  one  any- 
thing new  concerning  sculpture,  or  reveal  any  principles 
that  are  not  more  fully  or  more  clearly  exemplified  in  other 
extant  works.  It  does,  however,  prove  that  in  every 


1  For  colored   reproductions  of  another  famous   sarcophagus,  the 
Amazon  Sarcophagus,  see/.  H.  S.,  IV,  Plates  XXVI-XXVII;  for  two 
archaic  sarcophagi  of  clay,  see/.  H.  S.,  IV,  pp.  iff.     For  the  Alexander 
Sarcophagus  see  the  publication  by  Hamdy  Bey  and    Reinach ;   also 
Jahrbuch  X,  1895,  pp.   1651!.;  /  H.  S.,  XIX.,  1899,  pp.  273ff.;  and 
Jahrbuch  IX,  1894,  pp.  2O4ff. 

2  For  a  Roman  sarcophagus  of  the  type  frequent  in  later  ages,  see 
Text  Illustration  46. 


GRAVE  RELIEFS.  399 

department  of  life,  even  in  one  that  to-day  is  almost  exclu- 
sively given  over  to  the  barbarous  taste  of  untrained  stone- 
cutters, the  Greeks  were  governed  by  a  delicate  temper 
and  the  high  standards  of  their  best  men. 


4°0  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART   TEN. 


Portraits. 

A  brief  discussion  of  ancient  portrait-sculpture  is  unsat- 
isfactory from  every  point  of  view.  The  limits  of  the 
Handbook,  however,  preclude  a  more  explicit  discussion 
of  this  subject,  while  the  desired  comprehensiveness  of  the 
collection  demands  the  reproduction  of  at  least  a  few 
representative  portraits. 

The  Greek  portraits  of  this  collection  are  divided  into 
two  classes,  those  that  are  imaginary  and  those  that  might 
have  been  made  from  life.  Portrait-sculpture,  even  in  its 
most  modest  sense,  was  of  course  unknown  in  the  time  of 
Aisopos  (sixth  century  before  Christ),  so  that  the  late- 
Greek  artist  who  carved  the  statue,  now  in  the  Villa  Albani, 
had  to  rely  on  his  imagination  fully  as  much  as  Mr.  French 
had  to  do  in  more  recent  ^times  when  he  modelled  the  statue 
of  John  Harvard,  of  whose  features  no  record  had  been 
preserved.  Conditions  were  different  in  the  case  of  As- 
pasia  (the  friend  of  Perikles),  of  Alexander  (fourth  cen- 
tury), and  of  the  other  persons  of  these  or  later  periods. 
The  artists  who  carved  their  portraits  knew  them ;  or,  if 
the  extant  statues  and  busts  are  later  works,  might  have 
known  likenesses  made  by  their  own  contemporaries. 

The  many  details  which  give  individuality  to  a  face  are 
absent  in  most  Greek  works ;  it  is  as  if  the  artists  had 
penetrated  below  the  surface,  and  portrayed  the  essential 


PORTRAITS.  401 

character  of  the  person,  untouched  by  the  vicissitudes  of 
life  and  without  reference  to  any  particular  mood.  The 
Romans  worked  differently  ;  they  caught  the  expression  of 
the  moment  and  copied  every  essential  detail.  Their  heads 
are  real  to  an  astonishing  degree. 

Entirely  independent  of  the  study  of  ancient  portraits 
as  works  of  art  is  their  discussion  from  the  point  of  view 
of  identification.  The  noticeable  result  of  recent  investi- 
gations has  been  the  discovery  that  many  popular  names 
of  statues  and  busts  are  wrong,  and  that  many  hitherto 
unknown  works  represent  famous  characters.  One  of  the 
most  interesting  suggestions  is  that  the  bust  in  Boston 
labelled  "  Menander  ? "  Plate  403^  is  Virgil. 

In  the  selection  of  portraits  for  this  collection  less  atten- 
tion has  been  paid  to  these  investigations  than  to  the  value 
of  the  portraits  as  illustrations  of  the  development  of  por- 
trait-sculpture. The  popular  names,  therefore,  are  given, 
unless  they  are  now  universally  acknowledged  to  be  wrong, 
in  which  case  they  are  printed  in  quotation  marks. 


402  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


PART  ELEVEN. 


Heads. 

It  has  been  said  that  every  ancient  statue  can  be  accu- 
rately dated  by  its  head,  and  that  the  treatment  of  the 
head  is  the  surest  guide  to  the  understanding  of  the  style 
of  a  sculptor.  This  is  true  if  allowances  are  made  for 
those  conscious  copies  of  earlier  works  which  characterize 
the  styles  of  some  later  artists.  A  study  of  the  heads 
along  these  lines  is,  however,  impossible  from  photographs  ; 
for  it  must  take  into  consideration  the  third  dimension, 
and  requires  access  to  originals  or  their  casts.  General 
tendencies,  however,  not  so  much  characteristic  of  indi- 
vidual artists  as  of  periods,  can  be  traced  even  in  pictures. 
To  illustrate  this  fact,  some  seventy  heads  are  grouped 
together  here,  Plates  439-500,  and  arranged  approximately 
in  chronological  order.  The  conclusions  which  may  be 
drawn  from  these  heads  are  so  many  that  to  mention  all 
exceeds  the  limits  of  the  book.  They  are,  moreover,  often 
self-evident. 

Characteristic  of  the  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  is  the  ignorance 
of  the  proper  relation  of  the  features  and  of  the  individual 
quality  of  the  several  parts  of  the  face.  The  eyes  and  the 
mouths  offered  the  greatest  difficulty,  especially  in  marble. 
To  sink  the  eyeball  behind  the  lids,  and  both  ball  and  lids 
under  the  brow  was  a  problem  no  early  sculptor,  afraid  '  of 

1  See  the  discussions  of  the  "  Apollo  "  figures,  Plates  I  iff. 


HEADS.  403 

the  brittleness  of  his  material,  dared  to  solve.  This  ac- 
counts for  the  "  bulging  "  eyes,  Plates  440  and  444.  In 
the  very  beginning,  lack  of  accurate  observation  had  the 
same  effect,  as  is  seen  in  the  bronze  head,  Plate  442.  The 
somewhat  later  bronze,  Plate  441,  shows  a  great  advance. 

A  lack  of  feeling  for  the  characteristic  difference  of  the 
upper  and  the  lower  eyelid  is  well  seen  in  Plate  439,  and  a 
similar  lack  in  respect  to  the  lips  in  Plate  442.  Indica- 
tions of  painted  eyeballs  are  seen  in  Plate  440,  while  the 
eyes  of  the  heads,  Plates  442  and  445,  were  made  sepa- 
rately and  inserted.  The  top  of  the  head,  Plate  444,  was 
prepared  to  receive  a  helmet.  The  roughness,  therefore, 
does  not  indicate  hair,  as  scholars  used  to  believe. 

Plate  445,  labelled  in  the  Museum  of  Boston  "Artemis?" 
and  considered  by  the  Museum  authorities  to  be  genuinely 
Greek  archaic,  shows  such  a  striking  resemblance  to  the 
head  of  Artemis  in  the  Metope,  Plate  50,  that  it  is  difficult 
to  doubt  an  existing  connection  between  the  two  heads. 
Unfortunately  the  provenience  '  of  the  Boston  head  is  not 
published.  Some  scholars2  consider  the  head  a  late  Greek 
or  Roman  attempt  at  work  along  archaic  lines.  In  other 
words,  it  is  a  copy.  The  writer  shares  this  view  ;  to  his 
mind,  however,  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  this  copy  was 
made  in  antiquity. 

Some  peculiarities  of  the  Archaic  Period  continued  even 

1  Mr.  Robinson,  the  Director  of  the  Boston  Museum,  informs  me  by 
letter  of  February  i,  1905,  that  this  head  can  be  traced  to  Rome, 
"  where  it  was  formerly  owned  by  a  man  who  is  said  to  have  had  it 
from  excavations  of  his  own.  Where  these  excavations  were  I  have 
never  learned,  but  they  were  most  probably  in  Italy,  and  perhaps  not 
far  from  the  city."  2  Professor  Rufus  B.  Richardson  and,  the  writer  is 
told,  also  Professor  Adolf  Furtwangler. 


404  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

after  the  Persian  wars.  The  arrangement  of  the  hair,  for 
instance,  on  the  Apollo  of  Olympia,  Plate  446,  resembles 
that  of  the  head,  Plates  440  and  443a.  On  the  head, 
Plate  447 b,  the  braid  is  arranged  like  a  fillet  around  the 
head  and  is  very  pronounced.  When  the  custom  changed 
and  the  hair  was  worn  short  enough  not  to  necessitate  a 
braid,  the  artists  familiar  with  the  earlier  style  substituted 
an  actual  band  for  the  braid  of  hair.  This  is  clearly  seen 
in  the  heads,  Plate  449-450^  In  the  bronze,  Plate  44gb, 
this  band,  which  was  cast  separately,  has  been  lost.  This 
bronze  also  illustrates  the  greater  freedom  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  several  locks  that  metal  permitted,  as  com- 
pared with  marble,  Plate  44ga.  Entirely  original  is  the 
Naples  head,  Plate  448.  Here  the  narrow  band  has  given 
way  to  a  broad  fillet,  which  introduced  a  new  and  very 
successful  motive,  and  one  which  was  destined  to  last. 
Neither  band  nor  fillet  breaks  the  masses  of  hair  on  the  two 
heads,  Plates  451  a  and  b.  The  orderly  arrangement  of 
the  locks,  however,  and  the  parallel  depressions,  very  pro- 
nounced in  the  lowest  row,  Plate  45  ib,  indicate  the  gen- 
eral type  from  which  these  heads  deviate. 

Compared  with  the  earlier  heads,  these  ten  heads,  Plates 
446-45 1  b,  show  greater  knowledge  of  the  relation  which 
the  features  bear  to  each  other,  and  their  individual  quali- 
ties. The  eye  is  always  properly  sunk  below  the  brow, 
and  the  eyelids  are  often  carved  with  great  skill.  The 
brows  are  either  arching,  Plate  45  ob,  or  almost  straight 
and  sharp,  Plate  448.  The  only  brow  which  the  critical 
modern  observer  recognizes  as  possibly  true  to  nature  is 
found  on  Plate  45 ib. 

The  mouths  still  continue  to  offer  great  difficulties  to 
the  artists.  Those  that  are  true  are  by  no  means  the  most 


HEADS.  4°5 

beautiful,  Plates  44ga  and  b.  The  mouth  on  Plate  45 ib 
is  too  studied  in  effect  to  be  very  pleasing. 

The  Apollo  of  Olympia,  Plate  446,  was  designed  for  a 
distant  view,  so  that  a  detailed  discussion  of  his  features 
is  ill-advised.  Very  valuable  is  the  comparison  of  the 
marble  head,  Plate  44ga,  with  the  bronze  head  on  the  same 
plate;  and  also  with  the  two  marble  heads  on  Plate  451, 
of  which  one,  Plate  451  a,  is  a  copy  of  a  design  in  bronze, 
while  the  other  was  designed  for  marble. 

On  Plates  4$2a  and  b  and  453,  three  heads  of  women  of 
this  period  are  given.  The  Athena  head,  Plate  45 2b, 
originally  was  helmeted.  The  head,  Plate  453,  in  Berlin, 
has  recently  been  recognized  as  belonging  to  a  type  of 
figure  similar  to  "  Penelope,"  Plate  74.  The  treatment  of 
the  mouth  is  very  interesting.  The  two  halves  of  the 
mouth  are  irregular,  a  fact  which  was  originally,  no  doubt, 
little  noticed,  when  the  entire  figure  and  not  only  the  head 
made  its  appeal  to  the  spectator.  The  purpose  of  this 
uneven  mouth,  together  with  eyes  which  are  not  on  a 
straight  line,  was  to  suggest  a  more  pronounced  tilt  of  the 
head  than  the  artist  cared  to  carve  because  it  would  have 
spoiled  the  upright  lines  of  his  composition.  The  Greeks 
often  resorted  to  such  devices.  The  ears  of  the  "  Marble 
Faun,"  Plate  195,  for  instance,  are  unevenly  placed  on  the 
head,  and  it  may  perhaps  be  stated  as  a  rule  that  tilted 
heads  in  good  Greek  art  never  are  designed  with  the 
symmetry  which  characterizes  the  natural  head  and  which 
they  are  intended  to  suggest. 

The  heads  of  the  so-called  FIFTH  CENTURY  PERIOD  con- 
tinue to  develop  along  the  lines  established  by  the  earlier 
artists.  The  proper  relationship  of  the  several  features  to 
one  another  is  always  carefully  observed.  The  general 


406  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

ensemble  is  often  very  beautiful,  but  the  character  of  the 
person  is  rarely — if  ever — portrayed  in  his  face.  On  the 
contrary,  one  sooner  perceives  in  the  lines  of  the  features 
the  mood  of  the  artist  than  the  frame  of  mind  of  his 
subject. 

The  first  head  of  this  subdivision  is  a  so-called  Apollo  in 
the  Louvre,  which  it  is  interesting  to  compare  with  the 
head  on  Plate  44ya.  The  upper  lip  is  faulty  and  unpleas- 
antly restored;  with  that  exception,  however,  the  head  well 
illustrates  the  advance  alike  of  skill  and  of  conception  that 
had  taken  place.  Characteristic  of  most  heads  of  this 
period  is  the  outline  of  the  face,  which  tapers  toward  the 
chin. 

The  next  four  heads,  Plates  454b-457a,  all  belong  to  the 
school  of  Polykleitos.  Plate  455  reproduces  the  head  of 
the  Delian  Diadoumenos,  Plate  115,  and  Plate  45;a,  the 
bronze  herm1  of  the  Doryphoros  (see  Plate  113),  now  in 
Naples.  The  other  two  heads  are  in  the  Museum  in 
Berlin.2  They  show,  especially  over  the  forehead,  the 
characteristic  treatment  of  the  hair  of  the  Doryphoros, 
Plates  113  and  45 7a.  The  long  locks  of  the  head,  Plate 
454b,  remind  one  of  the  so-called  Medusa  Ludovisi,  Plate 
495  ;  while  the  broad  fillet  of  the  Diadoumenos,  Plate  455, 
calls  to  mind  the  head  in  Naples,  Plate  448.  In  the  Dia- 
doumenos no  locks  protrude  below  the  fillet,  which  gives 
the  appearance  of  a  high  forehead. 

1  Herm  is  the  generic  term  of  heads  erected  on  pillars.  Originally 
probably  all  such  heads  represented  Hermes.  These  pillars  were  often 
decorated  with  garlands.  The  projections,  Plate  457,  were  used  for 
this  purpose.  On  marble  herms  the  projection  was  probably  of  wood, 
inserted  in  oblong  holes;  see,  for  instance,  Plate  4 lib.  The  Dory- 
phoros herm  is  inscribed  with  the  name  of  the  copyist,  Apollonios  of 
Athens.  2  Berlin  Catalogue,  479  and  546. 


HEADS.  407 

Great  individuality  of  treatment  characterizes  the  seven 
heads  of  women,  Plates  4570-463.  In  all,  the  artists  have 
endeavored  to  do  justice  to  the  peculiar  charms  of  full  heads 
of  hair.  The  herm  of  the  Amazon,  Plate  45  70,  found  together 
with  that  of  the  Doryphoros,  used  to  be  held  to  offer  strong 
points  of  resemblance  both  to  the  Doryphoros  and  the  head  of 
the  Berlin  Amazon,  Plate  118,  and  consequently  to  prove  the 
Polykleitean  origin  of  that  statue.  This  view  has  recently 
been  attacked,  and  a  stronger  resemblance  been  noted  between 
the  Capitoline  Amazon,  Plate  120,  and  the  Diadoumenos. 
The  question  is  still  disputed. 

The  even  fullness  of  the  hair  of  the  Amazon,  Plate  45  7b, 
fails  to  set  off  the  beauty  of  the  face  to  the  same  advantage  as 
the  parted  strands  of  the  hair  of  the  Hera  head,  Plate  462. 
In  this  respect  this  latter  head  certainly  comes  nearer  the 
Polykleitean  treatment  of  hair  (see  Plates  113,  456  and  45  7a) 
than  that  of  the  Amazon  herm.  Very  similar  is  the  Hera 
Farnese  in  Naples,  Plate  461,  which,  however,  is  a  very 
uninspired  copy,  and  consequently  has  lost  the  tender  charm 
of  the  original.  On  the  broad  eyelids  of  this  head  the  eye- 
lashes originally  were  painted,  similar  to  the  head,  Plate  459. 
Now  when  the  color  has  disappeared,  the  lids  appear  to  be 
exaggerated,  they  add  an  unpleasant  expression  to  the  face. 

The  head,  Plate  463,  was  found  in  Argos.  It  probably 
belonged  to  the  pediment  of  the  temple,  and  although  not 
necessarily  the  head  of  Hera,  is  generally  known  by  that  name. 
It  was  designed  to  be  seen  only  in  profile ;  the  front  view  is 
almost  unfinished  and  very  cold.  Its  profile  modelling,  how- 
ever, is  very  superior  to  the  two  heads  of  Hera,  Plates  461  and 
462,  and  helps  to  suggest  the  beauty  that  must  have  distin- 
guished the  original  Hera,  of  which  Plate  462  is  a  copy. 

Another  head,1  originally  belonging  to  a  pediment,  is  the 

1  For  a  profile  view  see  E.  von  Mach,  Plate  XXXIX,  fig.  4. 


408  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Weber  head l  in  the  de  Laborde  Collection  in  Paris,  Plate  460. 
It  probably  once  belonged  to  the  East2  Pediment  of  the 
Parthenon.  Unfortunately  the  head  has  been  spoiled  by  the 
restoration  of  a  poor  nose  and  mouth.  Its  grandeur  of  con- 
ception, however,  is  still  apparent.  Despising  all  devices  such 
as  enhancing  its  beauty  by  an  artificial  arrangement  of  the 
hair,  the  artist  has  designed  a  head  of  such  inspiring  dignity 
that  it  fully  deserves  the  attention  which  its  connection  with 
the  Parthenon  has  given  it. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  these  heads  of  women  is  the 
head  in  Bologna,  Plate  458,  probably  correctly  identified  by 
Furtwangler  as  that  of  the  Lemnian  Athena  by  Pheidias,  a 
copy  of  whose  statue  is  discussed  in  connection  with  Plate  95. 

Plate  459  reproduces  one  of  the  few  extant  heads  with  suffi- 
cient traces  of  color  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  appearance  of 
original  statues.  Another  painted  head  of  Athena  is  in  the 
Berlin  Museum,  Catalogue,  76. 

On  the  next  six  Plates  a  few  of  the  heads  are  reproduced 
that  have  been  brought  in  connection  with  the  STYLE  OF  PRAX- 
ITELES. The  only  surely  Praxitelean  head,  however,  is  the 
Hermes,  Plate  466.  There  one  of  the  strongest  points  of  that 
sculptor,  his  .sunny  eyes,  is  well  studied.  By  a  multitude  of 
devices,  shadows  about  the  eye  are  as  much  avoided  as  they 
are  sought  for  in  the  Skopadean  heads,  Plates  4690^.  The 
same  absence  of  prominent  cheekbones  shows  in  the  Boston 
head  of  a  woman,  Plate  468.  The  forehead  of  the  woman  is 
almost  straight,  that  of  Hermes  has  a  pronounced  bar.  This 
is  a  characteristic  distinction  between  the  heads  of  men  and 
women  in  the  fourth  century. 

1  It  used  to  be  in  the  Weber  collection.  2  Not  the  West  Pediment, 
as  scholars  used  to  believe.  See  Bruno  Sauer,  Der  Weber-Labordische 
Kopf,  und  die  Giebelgruppen  des  Parthenon  ( 1 903). 


HEADS.  4°9 

The  head  of  the  Hermes  of  Andros  is  added  here  for  the 
sake  of  comparison  with  the  Praxitelean  head,  a  comparison 
which  is  especially  desirable  in  view  of  the  relation  that  the 
two  statues,  Plates  190  and  191,  bear  to  each  other. 

The  Eubouleus  and  Hypnos,  Plates  464  and  467,  are  so 
habitually  brought  in  connection  with  Praxiteles  that  it  seemed 
wise  to  add  them  here.  The  writer  himself  is  unable  to  see  in 
either  head  any  distinctly  Praxitelean  quality,  taking  as  starting 
point  the  Hermes  by  that  sculptor.  Praxiteles,  may  of  course, 
have  worked  differently  when  new  subjects  called  for  new 
modes  of  procedure ;  in  fact,  we  may  be  sure  that  he  did. 
But  what  these  new  modes  were  we  do  not  know.  To  see 
them  in  the  Eubouleus,  Plate  464,  and  Hypnos,  Plate  467,  is 
guess  work. 

The  Hypnos  head  has  lost  one  of  its  wings.  In  the  photo- 
graph the  hole  near  the  left  ear,  where  this  wing  was  added,  is 
hidden  in  the  shadow. 

The  first  definite  indication  of  the  STYLE  OF  SKOPAS  has 
been  gained  from  the  two  heads  from  Tegea  in  the  Pelopon- 
nesos,  Plate  469.  An  excellent  summary  in  tabulated  form  of 
Graefs  exhaustive  studies  of  these  heads  is  contained  in  Robin- 
son's Catalogue,  supplement,  pp.  n  and  12.  The  devices  by 
means  of  which  shadows  are  created  about  the  eyes  are  dis- 
cussed above  in  connection  with  Plates  2136°.,  especially  Plate 
215.  This  same  element  of  shadows  and  the  ensuing  pathos 
of  expression  is  noted  in  a  small  head  in  Boston,  Plate  47ob, 
which  for  this  reason  has  been  brought  in  connection  with 
Skopas.  The  face,  however,  tapers  strongly  toward  the  chin, 
and  in  this  respect  continues  the  style  of  Polykleitos  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  heads,  Plates  454b-457a. 

On  less  cogent  grounds,  although  possibly  correctly,  the 
head  of  a  woman  from  Athens,  Plate  471,  is  assigned  to 
Skopas.  Unfortunately  the  photograph  is  taken  under  wrong 


410  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

light,  from  below  instead  of  from  above,  so  that  the  high 
cheekbones  and  the  deep  shadows  about  the  eyes  are  almost 
lost.  The  same  is  true  of  the  somewhat  dry  copy  of  this  head 
in  Berlin,  Plate  47oa.  The  hair  is  arranged  similar  to  that  of 
Hera,  Plate  461  (see  also  Plate  462),  sparse  over  the  forehead 
and  very  full  from  the  temples  to  the  ears.  The  only  differ- 
ence is  that  in  the  Athens  head,  Plate  471,  the  fillet  is  pushed 
down  farther,  so  that  no  hair  shows  on  the  forehead  below  it, 
just  as  was  the  case  with  the  Diadoumenos  by  Polykleitos, 
Plate  455. 

On  the  next  five  plates  (472-476),  seven  heads  in  STYLES  OF 
VARIOUS  ARTISTS  are  reproduced.  The  bearded  head  from 
Melos,  Plate  472,  is  known  as  Asklepios,  god  of  healing,  be- 
cause the  mildness  of  its  expression  seems  to  agree  with  the 
character  of  this  god  better  than  with  that  of  any  other  deity 
customarily  represented  as  bearded. 

The  tender  charm  of  Eirene,  goddess  of  peace,  which  was 
noted  in  the  discussion  of  her  statue,  Plate  184,  is  beautifully 
expressed  in  her  face,  Plate  4733.  On  the  same  plate  the 
head  of  one  of  the  Graces  in  Siena,  Plate  2O9a,  is  reproduced. 
It  is  much  less  personal  and  seems  to  indicate  that  the  late 
copyist  introduced  some  of  the  ideas  of  his  own  age  into  this 
face  —  if  indeed  the  entire  group  does  not  owe  its  origin  to  this 
late  date,  in  spite  of  the  general  verdict  that  it  is  a  fourth  cen- 
tury work. 

Similar  doubts  come  to  the  serious  student  in  respect  to  the 
colossal  Hera  Ludovisi,  Plate  474,  which  is  most  frequently 
assigned  to  this  period.'  Those  familiar  with  Roman  portrait- 
sculpture  and  the  endeavor  of  many  Roman  artists  to  idealize 
the  faces  of  their  subjects  cannot  help  believing  that  this  head 
is  not  a  Hera,  but  a  Roman  lady  of  quality. 

1  The  best  discussion  of  this  head  is,  F.  W.,  1272. 


HEADS.  411 

The  battered  head  of  a  woman,  Plate  4753,  is  interesting 
because  it  was  found  in  the  excavations  of  the  Maussolleion. 
Its  hairdress  is  like  that  of  Artemisia,1  Plate  4043,  and  that 
of  a  colossal  head  from  Priene,  now  in  London  (  Catalogue  II, 
Plate  XXI).  Most  important,  however,  are  the  points  of 
resemblance,  between  this  head  and  that  from  Athens,  Plate 
471,  especially  in  respect  to  the  shape  of  the  face  and  the 
treatment  and  distribution  of  the  features.  The  head  in 
Athens  has  been  assigned  to  Skopas,  and  Skopas  is  said  to 
have  been  one  of  the  sculptors  of  the  Maussolleion. 

The  head,  Plate  475b,  is  known  as  Aphrodite,  owing  to  its 
"soft2  smile  and  the  languishing  expression  of  the  almond- 
shaped,  half-closed  eyes."  Its  features,  moreover,  as  Helbig 
says,  "betray  a  close  kinship  with  those  of  the  Venus  of 
Knidos."3  Much  closer,  however,  is  its  kinship  with  the  head 
of  the  daughter  of  Niobe,  Plate  222,  yes,  even  with  Niobe 
herself,  Plate  220.  This  resemblance  grows  when  the  head 
in  the  Terme  Museum  is  viewed  from  its  left  side,  the  one 
doubtless  intended  for  inspection,  but  unfortunately  rarely 
photographed.  Forming  thus  a  link  between  the  Knidian 
Aphrodite  by  Praxiteles'  and  the  Niobe  group  of  doubtful 
origin,  this  head,  little  known  at  present,  promises  to  become 
soon  one  of  prime  importance  for  the  student  of  ancient  art. 

Plate  476  reproduces  a  beautiful,  but  little-known  head  of 
the  Museum  in  Berlin/  acquired  in  Athens  in  1844,  and 
unfortunately  polished  to  the  detriment  of  its  modelling.  The 
head  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  Demeter  of  Knidos,s  Plate  247. 


'The  face  of  Artemisia  is  a  restoration.  2 Quoted  from  Helbig, 
1026""."  3  See  Plate  198,  and  for  the  Kaufmann  head,  E.  von  Mach,  Plate 
XXXIX,  fig.  I.  4 Berlin  Catalogue,  No.  616.  5  The  resemblance  is 
better  seen  in  the  front  view  of  Demeter,  given  E.  von  Mach,  frontis- 
piece. 


412  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Both  heads  were  worked  to  be  inserted  in  their  respective 
statues. 

The  next  eleven  plates  (477-487)  offer  samples  of  heads  of 
men  presumably  of  the  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  The  heads, 
Plates  478,  484,  and  486,  which  are  taken  from  statues,  Apollo 
Belvedere,  Plate  272;  Laokoon,  Plate  270;  and  Youth  from 
Antikythera,  Plate  290,  need  no  further  commentaries  than 
are  contained  in  the  discussions  of  the  statues  above. 

The  head  of  the  giant  Anytas,  Plate  477,  was  found,  together 
with  two  heads,  Plates  489  and  492,  in  the  excavations  of 
Lykosoura,  and  like  them  is  the  work  of  Damophon,  who  was 
discussed  above  in  connection  with  Plate  255.  The  pictu- 
resque arrangement  of  the  hair,  together  with  the  individuality 
of  the  features,  gives  a  unique  charm  to  Anytas.  He  has  no 
equal  in  the  whole  realm  of  Greek  sculpture,  a  fact  which 
makes  it  very  difficult  to  date  the  artist  who  carved  him.  In 
the  treatment  of  the  hair,  he  comes  nearest  to  the  fanciful 
creation  of  sea  deities,  such  as  are  reproduced  on  Plate  483. 
The  smaller  locks  on  his  forehead  remind  one  of  the  locks  on 
the  forehead  of  the  youth,  Plate  486. 

Almost  equally  unique,  although  along  different  lines,  is  the 
dreamy  head  of  Apollo,  leader  of  the  Muses,  in  the  British 
Museum,  Plate  479a.  Fanciful  in  the  extreme,  this  head  can 
yet  not  disguise  the  early  prototype  from  which,  in  a  series  of 
changes,  it  has  developed.  This  is  most  apparent  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  hair  over  the  forehead,  which  calls  to  mind 
Polykleitean  heads,  such  as  the  youth  in  Berlin,  Plate  456. 
The  fanciful  bow  of  hair  in  the  center  of  the  head  is  frequent 
in  the  Hellenistic  age  with  heads  of  women  and  of  Apollo,  who 
at  that  time  began  to  be  represented  more  and  more  effemi- 
nately. The  same  bow  occurs  on  Plates  478  and  480.  This 
latter  head  in  fact  may  be  considered  to  be  a  very  prosaic  and 
exaggerated  copy  of  the  same  original,  from  which  also  the 
head,  Plate  4793,  is  derived. 


HEADS.  413 

Rather  interesting  is  a  peculiar  and  not  successful  device  of 
the  artist  who  carved  the  so-called  Alexander,  Plate  4790.  In 
order  to  suggest  a  more  pronounced  tilt  than  he  actually  cared 
to  carve,1  he  has  carved  the  center  line  of  the  hair  with  the 
nicely  parted  locks  not  in  the  center  of  the  forehead,  but 
nearer  the  right  temple.  This  device  was  originally  more 
apparent  when  the  heavy  masses  of  hair  over  the  partition, 
perhaps  arranged  in  a  bow  similar  to  that  of  the  Apollo  on  the 
same  plate,  were  not  broken  away. 

The  bronze  head  of  an  Athlete  in  the  Louvre,  Plate  481,  shows 
by  its  fanciful  arrangement  of  the  hair  that  it  belongs  later  than 
the  fourth  century.  Below  the  hair,  however,  the  features  are 
of  surpassing  beauty  and  dignity.  It  is  well  to  compare  this 
head  with  that  of  the  youth  from  Antikythera,  in  Athens,  Plate 
486,  and  to  note  how  much  the  Athens  head  falls  below  the 
standard  of  Greek  art.  The  admiration  bestowed  by  many 
people  on  the  Antikythera  figure  is  entirely  without  foundation. 

The  perfection  of  the  technique  of  bronze  casting  is  well 
illustrated  in  the  two  heads,  Plates  482  and  485.  The  exact 
date  of  the  former  is  unknown.  It  represents  a  professional 
athlete,  and  doubtless  belonged  to  a  victor  statue  in  Olympia. 
Although  generally  assigned  to  the  Hellenistic  Period,  the 
head  might,  the  writer  believes,  also  have  been  made  in  the 
fourth  century.  Michaelis2  actually  mentions  it  in  connection 
with  Lysippos.  A  comparison  of  this  head  with  the  early 
bronze,  Plate  442,  is  valuable  as  showing  the  direction  in 
which  Greek  sculpture  developed. 

The  other  head,  Plate  485,  is  chiefly  interesting  as  revealing 
a  different  conception  of  a  youthful  satyr  from  that  of  the 
"  Marble  Faun,"  Plate  195,  generally  assigned  to  Praxiteles. 

1  See  above  the  discussion  of  the  head,  Plate  453.  2  Springer- 
Michaelis,  p.  259. 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

The  animal  nature  of  the  little  creature  is  much  more  promi- 
nent in  the  later  head. 

Plate  484,  which  reproduces  the  head  of  Laokoon,  ought  to 
be  studied  by  the  side  of  Plate  487,  Zeus  Otricoli.  The 
remarkable  relationship  that  exists  between  these  two  heads 
has  been  pointed  out  in  E.  von  Mach,  p.  313. 

The  next  ten  plates,  488-497,  offer  several  heads  of  women 
of  the  same  period.  Damophon  '  was  the  sculptor  of  Artemis, 
Plate  489,  and  Demeter,  Plate  492  ;  while  Euboulides  probably 
carved  the  once  helmeted  head  of  Athena,  Plate  490.  With 
these  exceptions  the  artists  of  none  of  the  other  heads  are 
known. 

The  Athena,  Plate  490,  is  especially  interesting,  because,  if 
the  attribution  to  the  Euboulides  monument,  near  which  it  was 
found  and  the  inscribed  base  of  which  is  extant,2  is  correct, 
we  possess  in  her  a  part  of  the  only  monument  "which3  we 
can  identify  as  having  been  actually  seen  by  Pausanias  during 
his  visit  to  Athens." 

The  two  heads  on  Plate  488  belong  to  the  statues  of  the 
Aphrodite  of  Capua,  Plate  293,  and  the  Nike  of  Brescia,  Plate 
301,  the  points  of  correspondence  between  which  were  noted 
above  in  the  discussions  of  the  statues. 

The  ugly  fracture  of  the  nose  of  the  beautiful  head,  Plate 
491,  renders  an  appreciative  study  of  the  sleeping  girl  very 
difficult.  "  The  deep  breathing,"  says  Helbig,*  "  of  the  fair 
sleeper  is  indicated  naturally  and  charmingly  in  the  treatment 
of  the  half-opened  mouth.  The  expression  shows  a  slight 


'For  this  artist  see  above  the  discussions  of  Plates  255  and  477. 
2See  Overbeck  II,  p.  438,  and  references  there  given.  3 Quoted  from 
Gardner,  Ancient  Athens,  p.  517.  Mr.  Gardner  refers  only  to  the  statue 
of  Athena,  but  two  other  fragments  of  this  monument  have  been  found, 
the  torso  of  a  woman  and  the  head  of  a  woman.  4Helbig,  1084. 


HEADS.  4*5 

trace  of  melancholy.  As  there  are  no  determinative  attributes, 
we  have  to  give  up  the  idea  of  definite  identification,  but  the 
fillet  seems  to  indicate  a  mythical  personage  rather  than  a 
grave  figure."  Since,  however,  the  mythical  girl  sleeper  of 
antiquity  was  Ariadne,  this  name  is  generally  given  to  the 
head. 

Plate  493  reproduces  one  of  the  treasures  of  the  Museum  in 
Berlin,  a  head  from  Cyprus.  It  is  characterized  by  large, 
generous  features  and  a  full  open  mouth.  The  peculiar  ex- 
pression, which  is  due  to  these  points,  is  best  appreciated 
when  the  head  is  compared,  for  instance,  with  that  of  Artemis, 
Plate  489.  Very  similar  in  this  respect  is  a  head  from  Perga- 
mon,  likewise  in  Berlin,1  a  fact  which  seems  to  point  to 
Pergamean  influences  also  in  the  head  from  Cyprus,  especially 
since  on  the  large  frieze  of  the  altar  at  Pergamon2  open 
mouths  are  very  common. 

The  delicacy  of  modelling  of  the  exquisite  head  in  Boston, 
Plate  494,  is  so  great  that  not  even  this  good  reproduction  is 
able  to  suggest  it.  The  head  is  mentioned  in  the  Report  of 
the  Trustees  (Robinson),  1903,  p.  57,  but  unfortunately  with- 
out any  mention  of  its  provenience.  Robinson  there  attributes 
the  work  to  the  school  of  Praxiteles,  and  the  second  half  of 
the  fourth  century  B,  C.  This  attribution  is  doubtful ;  the 
head  tan  hardly  be  dated  earlier  than  in  the  Hellenistic  Period, 
owing  to  its  peculiar  hairdress,  which  finds  its  nearest  parallel 
in  the  Apollo  heads,  Plates  479a  and  480.  It  does  not, 
moreover,  show  the  sunny  eyes,  which  to-day  are  considered 
characteristic  of  all  surely  Praxitelean  works.3  The  shadowy 
effect  of  the  small  eyes  in  the  Boston  head  is  very  pronounced, 
in  fact  more  so  than  in  almost  any  other  head  ;  and  the  cheek- 

'See  E.  von  Mach,  Plate  XXXIX,  fig.  4.  2See  Plates,  265-268. 
3  See  the  discussion  of  Plate  466. 


4*6  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

bones  are  very  prominent,  both  indications  of  an  un-Praxite- 
lean  origin.  The  treatment  of  the  nude  is  the  acme  of  skill, 
rendering  the  upper  surface  of  the  marble  almost  pellucid.  In 
this  respect  the  Boston  head  finds  its  nearest  parallel  in  the 
head  of  Apollo,  Plate  47ga. 

The  next  three  heads,  Plates  495-497,  are  known  as  heads 
of  Medusa.  This  identification,  however,  is  very  doubtful  in 
the  case  of  the  so-called  Medusa  Ludovisi,  Plate  495.  Helbig1 
argues  with  force  that  the  head  is  not  that  of  the  Medusa,  but 
of  a  sleeping  Fury,  one  of  the  Eumenides.  "The  hair  tangled 
by  the  wind,  and  the  locks  on  the  cheek,  heavy  with  perspira- 
tion, indicate  the  ardour  with  which  the  Fury  has  been  pursu- 
ing a  criminal.  She  is  sleeping  for  the  nonce ;  but  even  in 
her  sleep  she  retains  her  severity  of  expression  and  her  wrath 
against  the  miscreant."  Wolters,2  who  with  Helbig  denies 
that  this  head  is  that  of  Medusa,  dying  or  dead  at  the  hands 
of  Perseus  *  believes,  contrary  to  Helbig,  that  death  neverthe- 
less and  not  sleep  is  here  represented.  "There  is  perhaps," 
he  says,  "  no  other  work  extant  of  ancient  sculpture  in  which 
the  awfulness  of  death  is  portrayed  with  equal  force  and  super- 
lative skill."  The  writer  himself  inclines  to  the  view  that  the 
woman  is  sleeping ;  but  he  acknowledges  that  the  artist,  if  this 
was  his  intention,  failed  to  express  himself  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness.4 The  disposition  of  the  body,  however,  to  which  the 
head  belonged,  may  have  contained  the  key  to  the  interpreta- 
tion. The  copious  restorations,  including  a  bust  and  an  oval 
background,  seen  on  most  photographs,  were  removed  for  the 
making  of  this  picture.  Viewed  by  itself  without  these  con- 
fusing additions,  the  head  clearly  is  the  fragment  of  a  group. 

'Helbig,  866,  with  complete  bibliography.  2F.  W.,  1419.  3See  the 
discussion  to  Plate  47a.  4  Contrast  this  head,  for  instance,  with  the  so- 
called  Sleeping  Ariadne,  Plate  491. 


HEADS.  4*7 

The  original  group,  Helbig  suggests,  comprised  the  three 
Furies,  arranged  similarly  to  a  group  on  a  vase-painting  from 
Magna  Graecia/  where  one  of  the  three  dreaded  goddesses  is 
resting  her  head  in  sleep  against  the  shoulder  of  a  seated 
sister. 

The  generally  accepted  date  of  this  head  is  the  Hellenistic 
Period.  Wickhoff,2  however,  would  assign  her  to  the  Roman 
period,  and  more  specifically  to  the  time  of  Augustus.  He 
reaches  this  conclusion  by  noting  the  resemblance  between 
this  head  and  the  sleeping  Endymion,  Plate  306,  which  he 
erroneously,  the  writer  believes,  calls  Roman. 

No  doubt  attaches  to  the  common  name  of  Medusa  of  the 
head  in  Munich,  Plate  496.  The  wings  and  snakes  sufficiently 
characterize  it.  Medusa  was  the  only  mortal  of  the  three 
gorgons.  Perseus  is  said  to  have  cut  off  her  head.3  In  early 
art  she  was  represented  as  an  awe-inspiring  monster.  Later, 
however,  possibly  under  the  influence  of  Pindar,  who  called 
her  beautiful,  her  representations  changed.  The  head  of 
Medusa  had  the  power,  according  to  the  myth,  of  turning  to 
stone  whoever  looked  at  it.  It  was,  therefore,  an  appropriate 
decoration  of  a  shield  and  especially  of  the  aigis.4  As  such 
it  is  already  mentioned  by  Homer,  Ilias  XI,  36.  The  Medusa 
Rondanini,  Plate  496,  shows  a  late  development  of  the  type 
of  head  used  for  such  shield  decorations. 

Of  a  very  different  type  is  the  head  in  Paris,  Plate  497.  The 
wing  and  the  snakes,  almost  disguised  in  the  surrounding  hair, 
indicate  that  this  woman  is  one  of  the  three  gorgons.  Sleep, 
however,  seems  to  be  represented  rather  than  death,  so  that  it 
is  doubtful  whether  Medusa  is  meant  or  one  of  her  immortal 
sisters.  This  head  is  especially  interesting,  in  view  of  the 

1  Helbig,  866,  fig.  35.  2  Wickhoff,  Roman  Art,  p.  38.  3  See  Plate,  4;a. 
4  See  almost  all  statues  of  Athena. 


4*8  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

doubts  that  attach  to  the  head,  Plate  495,  as  representing  one 
of  the  gorgons  ;  for  those  who  see  in  her,  in  spite  of  Helbig's 
arguments  to  the  contrary,  a  Medusa,  will  be  ready  to  affirm 
that  if  one  artist  felt  at  liberty  to  treat  the  distinguishing  at- 
tributes of  the  monster,  wings  and  snakes,  with  as  much  deli- 
cacy as  the  artist  of  the  Paris  head  did,  another  might  be 
supposed  to  have  omitted  them  entirely. 

The  next  two  heads,  Plates  498  and  499,  are  samples  of  a 
mode  of  sculpture  not  uncommon  throughout  antiquity,  but 
most  in  vogue  late  in  the  Hellenistic  Period  and  during  the 
ascendency  of  the  Romans,  that  of  working  in  a  style  older 
than  the  one  that  came  natural  to  the  artist.  The  severity 
of  archaic  art,  when  halting  skill  and  fervor  of  conception 
created  works  that  possessed  a  curious  power  to  charm,  ap- 
pealed to  many  late  sculptors.  They  tried  to  imitate  it  out- 
right, or  to  mix  with  it  a  bit  of  their  own  more  expressive  skill. 
Their  works  generally  are  known  as  archaistic.  Perhaps  the 
noblest  of  all  such  works  is  the  head  of  Dionysos  in  Naples, 
Plate  498,  in  which  mild  and  natural  features,  such  as  were 
unknown  to  the  early  artists,  are  blended  with  simple  severity 
of  treatment,  especially  in  the  hair  of  the  head. 

A  more  accurate  copy  of  an  archaic  prototype  is  the  Zeus 
Talleyrand,  Plate  499.  It  is  archaic  art  seen  through  the 
spectacles  of  an  uninspired  age.  The  perfect  symmetry  and 
exasperatingly  accurate  dimensions  of  this  head  remind  one  of 
the  machine-made  heads  of  the  present  day.  But  even  in  this 
guise  the  dignity  of  the  original  is  apparent. 

Several  centuries  separate  this  head  from  the  realistic  head 
of  a  man,  Plate  500,  carved  in  late  Roman  times,  when  men 
had  acquired  the  habit  of  wearing  beards.  In  this  head 
nothing  is  left  to  the  imagination,  every  detail  is  carved  in  an 
illusionistic  manner,  but  not  the  less  carefully.  Even  the 
brows  and  the  pupils  of  the  eyes  are  indicated.  The  head  is 


HEADS.  419 

carved  by  a  master  hand,  but  although  the  man  himself  who 
wielded  the  chisel  may  have  been  a  Greek  by  birth,  one  feels 
that  he  was  no  longer  Greek  in  spirit.  A  new  conception  of 
art  had  dawned.  This  dawn  was  short ;  for  soon  utter  decline 
overtook  all  manifestations  of  art ;  centuries  elapsed  before 
either  painting  or  sculpture  rose  above  the  commonplace. 
But  when  that  time  finally  came,  memories  of  heads  like  this 
head  in  Athens  survived,  and  many  of  the  images  of  Christ 
bear  unmistakable  points  of  resemblance  to  the  head  of  this 
unknown  Greek. 


LIST    OF    PLATES. 


Part  One. —  Mycenaean  Age. 


PLATE. 

1  .  .  Stairway  in  the  Palace  of  Phaistos Crete 

2  .  .  Throne  in  the  Throne-Room,  Palace,  Knossos Crete 

3  .  .  Gate  of  the  Lionesses Mykenai 

4  .  .  Mask  of  Bearded  Warrior  from 

Mykenai National  Museum,  Athens 

5  .   .  Chariot  Relief Museum,  Candia 

This  relief  does  not  belong  to  the  Mycenaean  Age  proper,  but 
to  the  transition  from  that  age  to  historic  Greek  sculpture. 

6  .    .  Three  Nude  Idols British  Museum,  London 

7  .   .  Two  Painted  Metopes  from 

Thermon National  Museum,  Athens 

These  metopes  do  not  belong  to  the  Mycenzan  Age  proper, 
but  to  the  transition  from  that  age  to  historic  Greek  sculpture. 

8  .    .  Gold  Cups  from  Vaphio National  Museum,  Athens 

This  Plate  is  reproduced  with  the  permission  of  Ginn  &  Co. 

9  .    .  Gold  Ornaments  from  Mykenai  .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 
10  .    .  Gold  Ornaments  from  Mykenai  .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part  Two. — Archaic  Greek  Sculpture". 


PLATES  11-56.     For  Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads,  see 
Parts  IX,  X  and  XI. 

Statues  of  Men. 

lia  .  Kitylos  and  Dermys National  Museum,  Athens 

lib  ."Apollo  "of  Orchomenos    .    .    .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

12.  ."Apollo  "of  Thera National  Museum,  Athens 

13  .  .  "Apollo"  of  Melos National  Museum,  Athens 

14  .  .  "  Apollo  "  of  Tenea ,   .  Glyptothek,  Munich 

i$a  .  "Apollo"  of  Mt.  Ptoos National  Museum,  Athens 

15^  .  "Apollo  "  of  Mt.  Ptoos  (later  style),  National  Museum,  Athens 

16  .  ."  Apollo  "  Strangford British  Museum,  London 

ija  .  Statuette  after  Kanachos British  Museum,  London 

17 b  .  Bronze  Statuette  from  Ligourio Museum,  Berlin 

1 8  .    .  "Apollo"  Piombino Louvre,  Paris 

19  .   .  Calfbearer Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

Chares,  Plate  360 

Statues  of  Women. 

20  .   .  Figure  of  Woman  from  Delos 

(Artemis) National  Museum,  Athens 

21  .   .  Akropolis  Figure  Resembling 

No.  20 Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

22  .    .  "Hera"  of  Samos Louvre,  Paris 

23  .    .  Akropolis  Figure  Resembling 

No.  22 Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

24  .   .  Akropolis  Fragment  Resembling 

No.  22 ,.   .    .    .  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

25  .    .  Akropolis  Figures Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

26  .    .  Akropolis  Figures Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  tfi 

27  .    .  Akropolis  Figure Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

28  .    .  Akropolis  Figure Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

Antenor  Base,  Text  Illustration  No.  3 

29  .    .  Akropolis  Figure Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

30  .    .  Akropolis  Figure Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

31  .    .  Figures  of  Women  from  Delos  .    .  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

32  .    .  Flying  Figure  from  Delos National  Museum,  Athens 

Restoration,  Text  Illustration  No.  I 
Oriental  Artemis,  Text  Illustration  No.  5 

33  .    .  Bronze  Nike British  Museum,  London 

Marble  Nike  (Akropolis  style),  Text  Illustration  No.  2 

34  .    .  Athena  Statuette,  beaten  out  of  two 

sheets  of  metal Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

35  .    .  Athena  (bronze  statuette)    ....  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 
363    .  Chares,  seated  figure  from 

Branchidai British  Museum,  London 

36^    .  Woman,  seated  figure  from 

Branchidai British  Museum,  London 

Another  Woman  from  Branchidai,  Text  Illustration  No.  4 

37  .    .  Seated  Athena Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

38  .    .  Sphinx  from  Spata National  Museum,  Athens 

Another  Archaic  Sphinx,  Text  Illustration  No.  6 


Reliefs  and  Pediment  Sculptures. 

39  .    .  Reliefs  from  Assos Louvre,  Paris 

4O«    .  Herakles  and  the  Hydra Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

4o3    .  Herakles  and  the  Triton Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

4ia    .  The  Typhon Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

416    .  A  Bull  Attacked  by  Lions   ....  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

42  .    .  Athena  and  a  Giant Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

43a    .  Metopes  of  the  Treasury  of  Sikyon Museum,  Delphi 

43^    .  Relief  from  the  Frieze  of  the  Treasury  (possibly 

belonging  to  Siphnos) Museum,  Delphi 

44  .    .  Reliefs  from  Frieze,  Treasury  of  Knidos  .    .    .  Museum,  Delphi 

45  .    .  Sculptured  Drum  of  a  Column,  old  temple 

of  Artemis  in  Ephesos    .    .    .    :  .  British  Museum,  London 


v        GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

46  .    .  Pediment  Relief,  Treasury  of  Megara, 

Olympia Museum,  Olympia 

47<z  .  Perseus  Slaying  Medusa,  metope  from 

Selinus  x «...  Museum,  Palermo 

47^  .  Herakles  carrying  the  Kekropes,  metope  from 

Selinus Museum,  Palermo 

480  .  Four-horse  Chariot,  metope  from  Selinus  .  Museum,  Palermo 
48^  .  Votive  Relief  of  Victorious  Charioteer  .  .  .  Museum,  Berlin 
Europa,  metope  from  Selinus,  Text 

Illustration  No.  7 

49  .    .  Zeus  and  Hera,  metope  from  Selinus  .    .    .  Museum,  Palermo 

Gigantomachia,  two  metopes,  Text 
Illustrations  Nos.  8  and  9 

50  .    .  Aktaion  and  Artemis,  metope  from  Selinus  .  Museum,  Palermo 
510    .  Herakles  and  Hippolyta,  metope  from 

Selinus Museum,  Palermo 

51  £    .  Athena  and  Giant,  metope  from  Selinus  .    .  Museum,  Palermo 

Selinus  metopes  in  their  settings,  Text 

Illustration  No.  10 
520    .  Gable  End  of  a  Tomb  from 

Xanthos British  Museum,  London 

52^    .  Frieze  of  Cocks  and  Hens  from 

Xanthos British  Museum,  London 

53  .    .  Frieze  of  the  "Harpy"  Tomb  .    .    .  British  Museum,  London 

54  .    .  Reliefs  from  Thasos Louvre,  Paris 

55  .    .  The  Death  of  Aigis- 

theus Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

56  .    .  Figure  Mounting  a  Chariot  .    .    .  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

Head  of  Hermes,  Text  Illustration  No.  n 


1  The  Greek  spelling  of  Selinus  is  Selinous. 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part   Three. — Tfansitional  Period. 


PLATES  57-94.     For  Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads,  see 
Parts  IX,  X  and  XI. 

Statues  of  Men. 

57  .    .  Statue  of  a  "Boy" Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

58  .    .  Harmodios  and  Aristogeiton  (Tyrannicides)  Museum,  Naples 

"  Tyrannicides,"  Bobolini  Gardens  and  Naples,  Text 
Illustrations,  Nos.  14  and  15 

59  .    .  Aristogeiton Museum,  Naples 

60  .   .  Charioteer  of  Delphi Museum,  Delphi 

61  .    .  Discus  Thrower,  after  Myron    .    .    .  British  Museum,  London 

62  .    .  Discus  Thrower,  after  Myron Vatican,  Rome 

63  .    .  Discus  Thrower,  after  Myron  ....  Lancelotti  Palace,  Rome 

64  .    .  Discus  Thrower  (cast  with  body  of  62  and  head  of  63.) 

650    .  Marsyas Lateran,  Rome 

65^    .  Statuette  of  Marsyas British  Museum,  London 

66  .    .  A    Boxer,  probably  after  Pythagoras,  so-called  "  Apollo 

with  the  Omphalos  " National  Museum,  Athens 

67  .    .  A  Boxer,  probably  after  Pythagoras,  so-called 

"Choiseul-Gouffier  Apollo  "    .    .    .  British  Museum,  London 

68  .    .  Cassel  Apollo Museum,  Cassel 

69  .    .  Apollo  from  Pompeii Museum,  Naples 

70  .    .  Apollo  from  the  Tiber Terme,  Rome 

71  .    .  Hero  or  God  (Zeus?) Glypotothek,  Munich 

72  .    .  Spinario Palazzo  dei  Conservator! 


vi  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Statues  of  Women. 

73  .   .  Statue  of  a  Girl  Racer  . Vatican,  Rome 

74  .   .  "  Penelope  " Vatican,  Rome 

A  copy  of  the  head  belonging  to  this  statue,  Plate  453 
"  Penelope  "  properly  restored,  Text  Illustration  No.  23 

75.  .  "  Hestia"  Giustiniani Torlonia,  Rome 

76.  .  "Dancers"  from  Herculaneum Museum,  Naples 

77  .    .  Statue  of  a  Woman    .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Reliefs  and  Pediment  Sculpture. 

TEMPLE  OF  AIGINA. 
Restoration  of  Temple,  Text  Illustration  No.  13 

78  .  .  North  Corner  of  West  Pediment    ....  Glyptothek,  Munich 

79  .  .  Fallen  Warrior  of  East  Pediment   ....  Glyptothek,  Munich 

80  .  .  Fallen  Warrior  of  West  Pediment  ....  Glyptothek,  Munich 

81  .  .  Standing  Spearman  of  East  Pediment  .    .  Glyptothek,  Munich 

82  .  .  Archer,  "Herakles,"  of  East  Pediment 

(back  view) Glyptothek,  Munich 

83  .   .  Center  of  West  Pediment Glyptothek,  Munich 

TEMPLE  OF  ZEUS,  OLYMPIA. 

Restoration  of  the  Olympia  Pediments,  Text  Illustrations 
Nos.  20  and  21 

840    .  Oinomaos,  East  Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

84^    .  Sterope,  East  Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

853     "Kladeos,"East  Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

8$t>     "Alpheios,"East  Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

86  .    .  Apollo,  West  Pediment    ...••....  Museum,  Olympia 

Head  of  this  statute  on  Plate  446 
8;a    .  Centaur  Holding  a  Girl  by  the  Hair,  West 

Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

87^    .  Centaur  Biting  a  Boy,  West  Pediment  .    .    .  Museum,  Olympia 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  Vll 

88  .    .  Old  Woman,  West  Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

89  .    .  Centaur  Running   away  with  a  Girl,  West 

Pediment Museum,  Olympia 

90  .    .  Atlas  Metope Museum,  Olympia 

91  .    .  Augeian  Stable  Metope Museum,  Olympia 

920    .  Herakes  and  Bull  Metope Museum,  Olympia 

Stymphalian  Birds  Metope,  Text  Illustration  No.  18 
f)2b    .  Theseus  and  Bull,  Metope Theseion,  Athens 

Plate  gzS  is  placed  here  for  the  sake  of  comparison.     It  be- 
longs after  Plate  133. 


93.  .    .  Athena,  "Mourning"    or 

"  Thinking  " Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

94  .  .  Three  Women  in  Light  Garments,  so-called 

"Birth  of  Aphrodite."     Decorative  Relief 

of  a  Throne Terme,  Rome 

The  reliefs  of  the  sides  of  the  throne,  Text 

Illustrations  Nos.  16  and  17 


viii  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part  Four.  —  Fifth   Century. 


PLATES  95-183.     For  Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads,  see 
Parts  IX,  X  and  XI. 

Connected  with  Pheidias  and  His  School. 

95  .   .  Lemnian  Athena,  cast Albertinum,  Dresden 

Head  of  this  statue  on  Plate  458 

96  .    .  Athena  Parthenos,  copy Prado,  Madrid 

Athena  Parthenos,  head  on   gem  by  Aspasios, 
Text  Illustration  No.  12 

97  .   .  Athena  Parthenos,  Varvakeion  copy,  National  Museum,  Athens 

98  .    .  Athena  Parthenos,  Lenormant  copy  .  National  Museum,  Athens 

990    .  Athena  Parthenos,  Pergamon  copy Museum,  Berlin 

99<£    .  Athena  Parthenos,  copy  by  Antiochos  ( ? )  .    .    .  Terme,  Rome 
99<r    .  Athena  Parthenos,  copy,  "  Minerve  au  Collier  "  .  Louvre,  Paris 

100  .  .  Copy  of  Shield  of  Athena  Parthenos  .  British  Museum,  London 

101  .  .  Athena  Medici Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts,  Paris 

1020  .  Farnese  Athena Museum,  Naples 

IO23  .  Hope  Athena Deepdene,  England 

iO2c  .  Albani  Athena Villa  Albani,  Rome 

103  .  .  Draped  Figure  of  a  Woman  (Aphrodite?)  .    .  Museum,  Berlin 

Apollo,  "  Barberini  Muse",  Text  Illustration  No.  25 
104.    .  Hera,  "  Demeter"  (Ceres) Vatican,  Rome 

105  .    .  Hera,  " Barberini  Juno" Vatican,  Rome 

1 06  .   .  Hera, "  Borghese  Juno",  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Hera  in  Vienna,  Text  Illustration  No.  26 

107  .    .  Athena  of  Velletri Louvre,  Paris 

108  .   .  Aphrodite,  perhaps  after  Alkamenes,  so-called 

"Venus  Genetrix" ,.   Louvre,  Paris 

109  .    .  Woman  Running  .    .    .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Farnese  Diadoumenos,  Plate  117 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  IX 


Paionios. 

no  .    .  Nike  of  Paionios Museum,  Olympia 

in.   .  Restoration  of  Nike  of  Paionios 

Alkamenes. 

112  .    .  Hermes  after  Alkamenes  from 

Pergamon Museum,  Constantinople 

See  also  Plate  108. 

Polykleitos  and  His  School. 

113  .    .  Spearbearer  (Doryphoros)  after  Polykleitos  .  Museum,  Naples 

A  copy  of  the  head  of  this  statue,  the  bronze 
herm    in  Naples,  Plate  457^. 

114  .    .  Man   Fastening   His   Fillet  (Diadoume- 

nos)  after  Polykleitos,  Vaison  copy  .  British  Museum,  London 

115  .    .  Man   Fastening   His  Fillet  (Diadoumenos) 

after  Polykleitos.     Delos  copy  .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 
Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  455. 
n6a    .  Man  Tying  His  Fillet  (Diadoumenos)  after 

Polykleitos,  Madrid  copy Prado,  Madrid 

ndb    .  Man  Fastening  His  Fillet 

(Diadoumenos)  .    .    .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

117  .    .  Man  Fastening  His  Fillet  (Farnese  Diadoume- 

nos), perhaps  copy  after  Pheidias  .  British  Museum,  London 

Placed  here  for  the  sake  of  comparison.     It  belongs  after 
the  School  of  Pheidias. 

118  .    .  Amazon,  Berlin  type Museum,  Berlin 

A  probable  copy  of  the  head  of  this  statue, 
the  bronze  herm    in  Naples,  Plate  457^. 

119  .    .  Amazon Lansdowne  House,  London 

1 20  .    .  Amazon,  Capitoline  type Capitoline,  Rome 

121  .    .  Amazon,  Mattel  type Vatican,  Rome 

1220    .  Statuette  of  a  Youth Louvre,  Paris 

122^     .  Westmacott  Athlete    .......  British  Museum,  London 

\22c    .  Statuette  of  a  Young  Satyr  .    .  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris 


X         GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

123  ..  Statue  of  a  Youth, 

"  L'Idolino  " Archaeological  Museum,  Florence 

124  .    .  Hermes Museum,  Boston 

125  .   .  Ares,  "Borghese  Mars" Louvre,  Paris 

Unidentified  or  Doubtful. 

1260  .  Athlete  Dropping  Oil  in  His  Hand    .    .    .  Glyptothek,  Munich 

1 263  .  Standing  Discus  Thrower Vatican,  Rome 

127  .  .  "Apollo"  from  Eleusis Museum,  Berlin 

128  .  .  Asklepios  or  Zeus Albertinum,  Dresden 

129  .  .  The  Dioskoroi,  Castor  and  Pollux  .   .    .  Monte  Cavallo,  Rome 

Temple  Sculpture. 

THE  THESEION,  ATHENS. 

130.    .  The  "  Theseion  " Athens 

Metope  of  Theseion,  Plate  92^. 
131-133  The  "Theseion"  Frieze Theseion,  Athens 

THE  PARTHENON,  ATHENS. 

134  .    .  Restoration  of  the  Akropolis  of  Athens. 

135  .    .  The  Parthenon  from  the  North  West. 

The  Pediments. 

136  .  .  The  "  Fates,"  East  Pediment  ....  British  Museum,  London 

137  .  .  "Theseus,"  East  Pediment  ....     British  Museum,  London 

138  .  .  "Iris"  East  Pediment British  Museum,  London 

139  .  .  "Nike,"  East  Pediment British  Museum,  London 

1400  .  Helios  and  Horses,  East  Pediment    .  British  Museum,  London 

140^  .  Selene  and  Horse,  East  Pediment  ....  Athens  and  London 

Carrey's  (?)  Drawings  of  Pediments,  Text  Illustration  No.  22 
141  .   .  "Kephissos"  or  "  Ilissos,"  West 

Pediment British  Museum,  London 

"  Hermes,"  West  Pediment,  Text  Illustration,  No.  24 
Relief  of  Birth  of  Athena,  Madrid,  Text  Illustration,  No.  30 
Weber  Head,  Plate  460 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  xi 

The  Frieze. 

(For  the  complete  reproductions  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  see  the  plates 

accompanying  the  Handbook.) 
142-156  West  Frieze,  complete Parthenon,  Athens 

Plate  142  includes,  besides  the  last  man  of  the  West  Frieze, 
the  first  two  figures  of  the  North  Frieze. 

157  .    .  Seated  Gods,  East  Frieze British  Museum,  London 

158  .    .  Maidens,  East  Frieze Louvre,  Paris 

159  .    .  Aphrodite,  Eros  and  Magistrates,  East 

Frieze British  Museum,  London 

The  Metopes. 
1 60- 1 64  Nine  Metopes  of  the  Parthenon    .    .  British  Museum,  London 

THE  ERECHTHEION,  ATHENS. 

165  ..  The  Erechtheion. 

Another  view  of  the  Erechtheion,  Text  Illustration  No.  34 

166  .    .  One  of  the  Maidens  (Karyatides),  porch 

of  the  Erechtheion British  Museum,  London 

167  .    .A  Roman  Karyatid Vatican,  Rome 

A"Karyatid"in  Copenhagen,  Plate  317 

Giant  from  Agrigentum,  Text  Illustration  No.  35 

Plate  167  and  Text  Illustration  No.  35  are  placed  here  for 
the  sake  of  comparison. 

THE  ATHENA-NIKE  TEMPLE,  ATHENS. 

168  .    .  The  Athena-Nike  Temple Athens 

169  .    .  Slabs  from  the  West  Frieze    ....  British  Museum,  London 

Slabs  from  the  East  Frieze,  Text  Illustrations  Nos.  37  and  38 

170  .    .  Nike  Fastening  Her  Sandal,  from  the 

balustrade Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

Girls  Decorating  a  herm,    Text  Illustration  No.  32 

171  .   .  Two  Nike  Figures  with  a  Bull,  from 

the  balustrade Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

Roman  Relief  with  a  Motive  Similar  to  Plate  171, 

Text  Illustration  No.  33 
Additional  Nike,  Text  Illustration  No.  29 


xii  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


THE  TEMPLE  OF  APOLLO  AT  BASSAI  NEAR  PHIGALEIA. 

172  .    .  Two  Slabs  of  the  Frieze British  Museum,  London 

173  .   .  Two  Slabs  of  the  Frieze British  Museum,  London 


Monumental  Sepulchral  Structures. 

THE  NEREID  MONUMENT. 

Reconstruction  of  the  Nereid  Monument, 

Text  Illustration  No.  39 
174  .   .  Reconstruction  of  a  Part  of  the  Nereid 

Monument British  Museum,  London 

1750    .  Nereid British  Museum,  London 

175^    .  Nereid British  Museum,  London 

176  .   .  Nereid British  Museum,  London 

THE  GYOLBASHI  MONUMENT. 

177  .   .  Parts  of  the  Reliefs  from  Gyolbashi  ....  Museum,  Vienna 

Other  Reliefs. 

178  .  .  Eleusinian  Relief National  Museum,  Athens 

179  .  .  Orpheus,  Eurydike  and  Hermes Museum,  Naples 

1 80  .  .  Hermes  and  the  Nymphs Museum,  Berlin 

181*  .  Medea  and  the  Daughters  of  Pelias Museum,  Berlin 

182  .    .  Fragment  of  a  Horseman Vatican,  Rome 

183  .    .  Votive  Relief Museum,  Boston 

"It  became  necessary  at  the  last  moment  to  substitute  the  Berlin 
copy  of  this  relief  for  the  better  one  in  the  Lateran  Museum,  Rome. 
The  Handbook  contains  a  description  of  the  latter  relief. 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  Xlll 


Part  Five. —  Fourth  Century. 


PLATES  184-253.     For  Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads  see 
Parts  IX,  X  and  XI. 

Kephisodotos. 

184  .    .  Eirene  and  Ploutos Glyptothek,  Munich 

Head  of  this  statue  on  Plate  4730. 

Praxiteles  and  His  School. 

Statues  of  Men. 

185.    ."  Apollo  "  Sauroktonos Vatican,  Rome 

186  .    .  "Apollo"  Sauroktonos Louvre,  Paris 

"Apollo"  Sauroktonos  (bronze),  Villa  Albani, 
Text  Illustration  No.  27 

187  .    .  Dionysos,  "  Sardanapallos  " Vatican,  Rome 

188  .    .  Eros  with  Bow Capitoline,  Rome 

189  .    .  Eros  Centocelle Vatican,  Rome 

190  .    .  Hermes  of  Praxiteles Museum,  Olympia 

Head  of  this  statue  on  Plate  466 
Hermes  Bringing  Dionysos  to  the  Nymphs, 
Text  Illustration,  No.  31 

191  .    .  Hermes  of  Andros National  Museum,  Athens 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  465 

192  .  .  Hermes  Belvedere Vatican,  Rome 

193  .  .  Hermes  Farnese British  Museum,  London 

194  .  .  "Narkissos"  (probably  a  Dionysos)   ....  Museum,  Naples 

195  .  .  Satyr,  "  Marble  Faun" Capitoline,  Rome 

196  .  .  Satyr,  torso Louvre,  Paris 

197  .  .  Satyr  Pouring  Wine Terme,  Rome 


XIV  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Statues  of  Women. 

198  .  .  Aphrodite  (Knidian)  nude,  from  the  cast    .    .    .  Vatican,  Rome 

1993  .  Aphrodite  (Knidian)  with  metal  drapery    .    .    .  Vatican,  Rome 

199^  .  Aphrodite Glyptothek,  Munich 

200  .  .  Aphrodite  Anadyomene 

(Pselioumene) British  Museum,  London 

201  .    .  Aphrodite,  Capitoline Capitoline,  Rome 

202.    .  Aphrodite,  "  Venus  dei  Medici " Uffizi,  Florence 

203  .  .  Aphrodite  of  Aries Louvre,  Paris 

204  .  .  Aphrodite Museum,  Syracuse 

205  .  .  Artemis  from  Cyprus Museum,  Vienna 

206  .  .  Artemis-Tyche  (Isis-Tyche) Glyptothek,  Munich 

207  .  .  Artemis  of  Gabii Louvre,  Paris 

2o8a  .  Maiden  from  Herculaneum    ......  Albertinum,  Dresden 

2086  .  Matron  from  Herculaneum Albertinum,  Dresden 

Groups. 

209^    .  Three  Graces Capitoline,  Rome 

Head  of  one  of  these  graces,  Plate  473^ 
209^    .  Boy  and  Girl,  "  Eros  and  Psyche" Capitoline,  Rome 

Reliefs. 

2 1 02 1 2  Slabs  of  Marble  Base  from 

Mantineia National  Museum,  Athens 


Skopas  and  His  School. 

213  ,    .  Ares  Ludovisi Terme,  Rome 

214  .    .  Meleager Museum,  Berlin 

215  .    .  Meleager Harvard  University,  Cambridge 

216  .    .  Meleager Vatican,  Rome 

217  .    .  Drum  from  Ephesos British  Museum,  London 

218  .  .  Drum  from  Ephesos,  another  view  .  British  Museum,  London 

219  .    .  Bacchic  Procession Museum,  Naples 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  XV 


Works  Brought  in  Connection  with  Praxiteles  and  Skopas  on 
Doubtful  Authority. 

THE  NIOBE  GROUP  AND  RELATED  FIGURES. 

220  .    .  Niobe  and  Daughter Uffizi,  Florence 

221  .    .  Niobid  Chiaramonti Vatican,  Rome 

222  .  .  Niobid,  resembling  Niobid  Chiaramonti  .    .   .  Uffizi,  Florence 

223  .    .  Dying  Niobid Glyptothek,  Munich 

224  .   .  Fleeing  Sons Uffizi,  Florence 

Son  and  Daughter,  Vatican,  Text  Illustration,  No.  41 

2250    .  Paedagog  (with  boy) Louvre,  Paris 

225*    .  Paedagog Uffizi,  Florence 

226  .    .  Kneeling  Youth  Subiacco Terme,  Rome 

227  .    .  "  Ilioneus  " Museum,  Munich 

Plates  226  and  227,  although  not  belonging  to  the  Niobe  group, 
have  been  placed  here  because  they  are  most  readily  looked  for 
in  this  connection. 

THE  MAUSSOLLEION  SCULPTURE. 

Maussollos  and  Artemisia,  Plate  404.     Head  of  a  Woman, 
Plate  4750. 

228  .  .  Slab   of  the  Large  Amazon  Frieze  .  British  Museum,  London 
2290  .  Slab    of  the  Large  Amazon  Frieze  .  British  Museum,  London 
229^  .  Slab    of  the  Large  Amazon  Frieze  .  British  Museum,  London 
230^  .  Slab    of  the  Large  Amazon  Frieze  .  British  Museum,  London 
230/5  .  Slab    of  the  Large  Amazon  Frieze  .  British  Museum,  London 
231  .  .  Charioteer  of  the  Small  Frieze  .    .  .  British  Museum,  London 
232.  .  Charioteer  (?),  "Apollo" Museum,  Boston 

Placed  here  for  the  sake  of  comparison  with  Plate  231. 

Leochares. 

233  .    .  Ganymedes  and  the  Eagle Vatican,  Rome 

Lysippos  and  His  School. 

234  .    .  Hagias,  after  Lysippos Museum,  Delphi 

235  .    .  Apoxyomenos,  after  Lysippos Vatican,  Rome 


XVI  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

236  .   .  Herakles  Farnese Museum,  Naples 

Herakles,  bronze  statuette,  Louvre,  Text 
Illustration,  No.  36 

237  .    .  Herakles  Reposing Museum,  Naples 

2380    .  Hermes  Fastening  Sandal Glyptothek,  Munich 

238*5    .  Hermes  Fastening  Sandal,  "  Jason  " Louvre,  Paris 

239  .   .  Poseidon Lateran,  Rome 

Alexander,  Plate  399 

Sculptors  of  Epidauros. 

2400    .  Nike  from  Epidauros National  Museum,  Athens 

240^    .  Nike  from  Epidauros National  Museum,  Athens 

Thrasymedes. 

Asklepios  Relief,  copy  of  statue  by 

Thrasymedes National  Museum,  Athens 

Asklepios,  another  relief,  copy  of  statue 

by  Thrasymedes National  Museum,  Athens 

Timotheos. 

242  .    .  Amazon,  Mounted National  Museum,  Athens 

243  .    .  Amazon,  Mounted Museum,  Boston 

Placed  here  for  the  sake  of  comparison  with  Plate  242. 

244  .   .  Two  Nereids,  Mounted      National  Museum,  Athens 

Artists  Unknown. 

2450    .  Silenos  and  Infant  Dionysos Glyptothek,  Munich 

245*5    .  Silenos  and  Infant  Dionysos Vatican,  Rome 

245^    .  Silenos  and  Infant  Dionysos Louvre,  Paris 

246  .   .  Torso  Belvedere Vatican,  Rome 

247  .    .  Demeter  of  Knidos British  Museum,  London 

248  .    .  Flora  Farnese Museum,  Naples 

249*2    .  Demeter Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

249*5    .  Kybele Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

250  .  .  Nymph Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

251  .  .  Psyche  of  Capua Museum,  Naples 

252  .  .  Woman  from  Kyzikos Museum,  Berlin 

253  .  .  Lysikrates  Monument      Athens 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  xvii 


Part  Six. — The  Hellenistic  Period. 

THE  AUTUMN  DAYS  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 


PLATES  254-315.     For  Grave  Reliefs,  Portraits  and  Heads,  see 
Parts  IX,  X  and  XI. 

A.     IDENTIFIED  SCULPTURE. 

1.  BY  ARTISTS. 
Boethos. 

254  .   .  Boy  with  Goose Glyptothek,  Munich 

Damaphon. 

255  .   .  Fragment  of  Drapery National  Museum,  Athens 

Eutychides. 

256  .   .  Statue  of  the  Tyche1  of  Antiocheia Vatican,  Rome 

2.  BY  SCHOOLS. 
Pergamon,  First  School. 

257  .  .  Dying  Gaul ...  Capitoline,  Rome 

258  .  .  Dying  Gaul  (back) •  .  Capitoline,  Rome 

259  .  .  Gaul  and  His  Wife Terme,  Rome 

260  .  .  Slave  Sharpening  Knife Uffizi,  Florence 

261  .  .  Marsyas  and  Slave,  suggestion  as  to  appearance  of  the  original ; 

combination  group  of  Marsyas  in  the  Louvre  and  the  Slave, 
Plate  260. 

1  Tyche  is  the  name  of  the  Greek  goddess  of  Good  Luck. 


xvill  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Attalos  Group. 

262  .  .  Dead  Amazon Museum,  Naples 

263  .  .  Dead  Giant Museum,  Nables 

2640  .  Dying  Gaul Museum,  Naples 

264/5  .  Dead  Persian Museum,  Naples 

Pergamon,  Second  School. 

265  .  .  Restoration  of  Pergamon  Alter  .    .  Pergamon  Museum,  Berlin 

266  .  .  Two  Slabs  of  Large  Frieze  ....  Pergamon  Museum,  Berlin 

267  .  .  Two  Slabs  of  Large  Frieze  ....  Pergamon  Museum,  Berlin 

268  .  .  Two  Figures  from  Large  Frieze  .  Pergamon  Museum,  Berlin 
269*1  .  Goddess Capitoline,  Rome 

Dancing  Woman,  relief  from  Pergamon,  Plate  308 
Warrior  of  Delos,  Plate  287 

Priene. 

1696  Statue  of  Woman British  Museum,  London 

Rhodes. 

270  .    .  Laokoon Vatican,  Rome 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  484 

Tralles. 

271  .    .  Farnese  Bull Museum,  Naples 

Farnese  Bull,  side  view,  Text   Illustration  No.  44 
Wall  Painting  from  Pompeii  with  Motive  of  Far- 
nese Bull,  Text  Illustration  No.  45 

B.    ARTISTS  AND  SCHOOLS  UNKNOWN. 
Statues  of  Men. 

272  .    .  Apollo  Belvedere Vatican,  Rome 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  478 

273  .    .  Boy  Praying Museum,  Berlin 

274  .    .  Boy  found  in  the  Rhine Museum,  Berlin 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  XIX 

275  .    .  Centaurs,  copies  (?)  by  Papias  and  Aristeas,  Capitoline,  Rome 

276  .    .  Youthful  Dionysos Terme,  Rome 

277  .    .  Menelaos  and  Patroklos Loggia  dei  Lanzi,  Florence 

The  Pasquino,  Rome,  Text  Illustration  No.  42 

278  .  .  Nile Vatican,  Rome 

279  .  .  Poseidon  of  Melos National  Museum,  Athens 

280  .  .  Satyr,  Barberini  Faun Glyptothek,  Munich 

281  .  .  Satyr  Sleeping Museum,  Naples 

2820  .  Satyr  Dancing,  bronze Museum,  Naples 

282*5  .  Satyr  Dancing,  marble Villa  Borghese,  Rome 

283  .    .  Satyr  Playing  Scabellum Uffizi,  Florence 

284  .    .  Spinario British  Museum,  London 

285  .    .  Triton Vatican,  Rome 

286  .    .  Warrior  Borghese Louvre,  Paris 

287  .    .  Warrior  from  Delos National  Museum,  Athens 

288  .    .  Wrestlers Uffizi,  Florence 

289  .    .  "Wrestlers" Museum,  Naples 

290  .    .  Youth  from  Antikythera National  Museum,  Athens 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  486 


Statues  of  Women. 

291  .    .  Aphrodite  of  Melos  (side) Louvre,  Paris 

2920    .  Aphrodite  of  Melos  (front) Louvre,  Paris 

292^    .  Aphrodite  (draped  torso), 

Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

293  .    .  Aphrodite  of  Capua Museum,  Naples 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  4880 

294  .  .  Aphrodite,  crouching Vatican,  Rome 

295  .  .  Ariadne • Vatican,  Rome 

296  .  .  Artemis  of  Versailles Louvre,  Paris 

297  .  .  Athena  Giustiniani Vatican,  Rome 

298  .  .  Athena  Chiaramonti Vatican,  Rome 

299  .  .  Muse,  Melpomene Louvre,  Paris 

300  .  .  Muse,  Polyhymnia Museum,  Berlin 

301  .  .  Nike  of  Brescia Museum,  Brescia 

Head  of  this  statue,  Plate  488* 

302  .    .  Nike  of  Samothrace  (Victory  of  SamothraceJ       Louvre,  Paris 


XX  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

303  .    .  Nike  of  Samothrace  (other  view) Louvre,  Paris 

304  .    .  Themis  of  Rhamnous National  Museum,  Athens 

305  .  .  Torso,  draped  woman  .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Reliefs. 

306  .    .  Endymion  Relief Capitoline,  Rome 

307  .  .  Dancing  Woman,  theatre  Dionysos,  National  Museum,  Athens 

308  .  .  Dancing  Woman  from  Pergamon  .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 

Groups  in  Relief. 

309  .    .  Apollo,  Artemis,  Leto,  Nike Villa  Albani,  Rome 

310  .    .  Apotheosis  of  Homer •  British  Museum,  London 

311  .    .  Herakles  and  the  Hesperidai Villa  Albani,  Rome 

312  .    .  Paris  and  Helen Museum,  Naples 

313  .    .  Peasant  Going  to  Market Glyptothek,  Munich 

314  .    .  Satyr  After  the  Chase Louvre,  Paris 

315  .    .  Visit  of  Dionysos Museum,  Naples 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE,  xxi 


Part  Seven. —  Graeco- Roman,  Eclectic  and 
Imitative  Sculpture. 


PLATES  316-324.     For  Heads  see  Part  XI. 

316.  .  Archaistic  Pallas,  Athena Museum,  Naples 

317.  "Karyatid" Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Roman  Karyatid,  Plate  167 

318  .    .  Esquiline  Aphrodite     ....  Palazzo  del  Conservatori,  Rome 

319  .    .  Woman  Seated Museum,  Boston 

320  .    .  Woman  Standing Museum,  Boston 

SCHOOL  OF  PASITELES. 

321  .  .  Youth,  by  Stephanos •    ...    .  Villa  Albani,  Rome 

322  .  .  "  Orestes  and  Elektra  " Terme,  Rome 

323  .  .  "  Orestes  and  Pylades  " Louvre,  Paris 

324  .  .  Ildefonso  Group Prado,  Madrid 


XXll  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part  Eight.  —  Etruscan  and   Roman   National. 


PLATES  325-348.     For  Grave  Reliefs  and  Heads  see  Parts  IX  and  X. 
STATUES. 

325*1  .  Bronze  Chimaera Archaeological  Museum,  Florence 

325/5  .  Wolf  of  the  Capitol      ....  Palazzo  dei  Conservatori,  Rome 

326  .  .  Camillus Palazzo  dei  Conservatori,  Rome 

327  .  .  Orator Archa;ologieal   Museum,  Florence 

328  .  .  Togatus  Sacrificing Vatican,  Rome 

329x1  "Thusnelda" Loggia  dei  Lanzi,  Florence 

329^  .  Togatus British  Museum,  London 

330  .    .  Minerva,  bronze,  commonly  called 

Etruscan Archaeological  Museum,  Florence 

SECULAR  RELIEFS. 

Age  of  Augustus. 

331  .    .  Procession,  Ara  Pacis Uffizi,  Florence 

332  .    .  Procession,  Ara  Pacis Uffizi,  Florence 

333  .    .  Relief  and  Floral  Pattern  from  Ara  Pacis    .    .    .  Terme,  Rome 

See  also  Frontispiece 

Age  of  Titus. 

334  .    .  Triumphal  Procession,  arch  of  Titus Forum,  Rome 

335  .    .  Spoils  of  Jerusalem,  arch  of  Titus Forum,  Rome 

Age  of  Trajan. 

3360    .  Column  of  Trajan Forum  of  Trajan,  Rome 

336^    .  Column  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (Column  of 

"Antonine") Piazza  Colonna,  Rome 

This  is  placed  here  for  the   sake  of  comparison.     It  belongs 
after  Plate  343 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  XXlli 

337  .    .  Reliefs  in  Forum Forum,  Rome 

338  .    .  Reliefs  from  Triumphal  Arch Beneventum 

339  .    .  Trajan  and  His  Suit Lateran,  Rome 

Nike,  Column  of  Trajan,  Text  Illustration  No.  28 
See  also  Plates  346    and  347 

Age  of  Hadrian. 

340  .    .  Reliefs Palazzo  dei  Conservator!,  Rome 

Age  of  Antonine. 

341  .    .  Apotheosis  of  Antonine Vatican,  Rome 

Age  of  Marcus  Aurelius. 

Column,  see  Plate  336^. 

342  .    .  Reliefs  from  Column  of  Marcus 

Aurelius  "of  Antonine" Piazza  Colonna,  Rome 

343  .    .  Relief   from  Column  of  Marcus 

Aurelius  Piazza  Colonna,  Rome 

344  .    .  Reliefs Palazzo  dei  Conservatori,  Rome 

Age  of  Septimius  Severus. 

345  .  •  Triumphal  Arch Forum,  Rome 

Age  of  Constantine. 

3460    .  Relief  on  Triumphal  Arch  of  Constantine; 

Sacrifice  of  Trajan Forum,  Rome 

346^    .  Relief  on  Triumphal  Arch  of  Constantine; 

Trajan  and  His  Troops Forum,  Rome 

347*2    .  Relief  on  Triumphal  Arch  of  Constantine; 

Trajan  on  the  Lion  Skin Forum,  Rome 

347 b    .  Relief  on  Triumphal  Arch  of  Constantine; 

Trajan  and  the  Boar Forum,  Rome 

347^-     .  Relief  on  Triumphal  Arch  of  Constantine;  Con- 
stantine enthroned,  surrounded  by  the  people  Forum,  Rome 
The  arch  was  built  by  Constantine.     Most  of  the  reliefs  were 
taken  from  earlier  and  better  arches. 

TEMPLE  RELIEFS. 

348  .    .  Temple  of  Minerva,  part  of  the  frieze,  in  situ Rome 


XXIV  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part  Nine. —  Grave  Reliefs. 


PLATES  349-386.    See  also  Plates  na,  174-176,  177,  228-231. 
Single  Figures. 

3490    .  Grave  Relief  by  Alxenor National  Museum,  Athens 

349^    .  Grave  Relief,  resembling  that  of  Alxenor    .    .  Museum,  Naples 

3500     .  Grave  Relief  of  Aristion National  Museum,  Athens 

350(5    .  Grave  Relief  of  Agathokles  ....  National  Museum,  Athens 

351  .    .  Discus-carrier  Head National  Museum,  Athens 

352  .    •  Spearbearer,  Head Museum,  Berlin 

353  .    .  Head  of  a  Youth,  from  Athens Museum,  Berlin 

354«    .  Grave  Relief  of  a  Young  Girl Museum,  Berlin 

354^    .  Grave  Relief  of  Woman  Heavily 

Draped National  Museum,  Athens 

355  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Philis Louvre,  Paris 

356  .    .  Fragment  of  Grave  Relief  of  a 

Warrior Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

357  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Aristonautes    .    .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

Two  Figures. 

358  .    .  Grave  Relief  from  Pharsalos Louvre,  Paris 

359  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Hegeso  .    .  Outside  the  Dipylon  Gate,  Athens 

360  .    .  Grave  Relief,  similar  to  relief  of  Hegeso, 

Plate  359,  from  the  Peiraios .    .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

361  .    .  Grave  Relief  similar  to 

Plate  359 Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

362  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  a  Youth  with  His  Boy 

Servant  and  His  Cat National  Museum,  Athens 

363  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  a  Youth  Attended  by 

an  Old  Man National  Museum,  Athens 

364  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Horseman  with  Whip 

from  Thespiai National  Museum,  Athens 

Placed  here  for  the  sake  of  comparison  with  Dexileos,  Plate  365. 
It  belongs  after  Plate  357 

365  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Dexileos     .  Outside  the  Dipylon  Gate,  Athens 

366  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  a  Horseman,  similar  to 

that  of  Dexileos Villa  Albani.  Rome 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  xxv 

Three  or  More  Figures. 

3670    .  Spartan  Grave  Relief Museum,  Berlin 

367  £    .  Grave  Relief  of  a  Mother,  formerly  called 

Ino-Leukothea  relief Villa  Albani,  Rome 

368  .    .  Grave  Relief,  seated  woman  on  tilted  chair, 

two  attendants,  frame  restored    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

369  .   .  Grave  Relief.found  in  the  bed  of  the  Ilissos, 

youth  and  grieving  father  (?),  little  slave 

and  dog  below National  Museum,  Athens 

370  .    .  Grave  Relief,  seated  woman,  standing  woman, 

man  in  the  background National  Museum,  Athens 

371  .    .  Grave  Relief,  two  standing  figures,  slave  girl 

tying  the  sandal  of  her  mistress  .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

372  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Korallion    .    .    .  Outside  the  Dipylon,  Athens 

373  .    .  Grave  Relief  of  Protonoe  ....  Outside  the  Dipylon,  Athens 

374  .   .  Grave  Relief  of  Damasistrate  .    .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

Roman  Grave  Reliefs. 

375  .    .  Tombstone  of  Husband  and  Wife,  so-called  Porcia 

and  Cato Vatican,  Rome 


376  .    .  Two  Mourning  Women  Seated Museum,  Berlin 

Kitylos  and  Dermys,  Plate  na 

"Penelope,"  Plate  74 

"  Orestes  and  Elektra,"  Plate  322 

377  .    .  Two  Funeral  Vases National  Museum,  Athens 

A  Very  Ornate  Vase,  Text  Illustration  No.  43 
378.    .  Side  of  Sarcophagus  of  the  Satrap  .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 

379  .    "Alexander"Sarcophagus    (front)      .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 

380  .    "Alexander"Sarcophagus    (back)      .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 

381  .    .  Heads from"Alexander"Sarcophagus  .  Museum,  Constantinople 

382  .    .  Heads  from"Alexander"Sarcophagus  .  Museum,  Constantinople 
3830     "Alexander"Sarcophagus  (end)      .    .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 

383^    .  Lycian  Sarcophagus  (end) Museum,  Constantinople 

3840-^.  Lycian  Sarcophagus  (both  sides)  .    .  Museum,  Constantinople 
38  ^a-b .  Mourning  Women  Sarcophagus  (both 

sides) Museum,  Constantinople 

386  .    .  Mourning  Women  Sarcophagus  (end)  Museum,  Constantinople 


XXVI  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Part  Ten.  —  Portraits. 


I.      GREEK  PORTRAITS,  PLATES  387-438. 
Imaginary  Portraits. 

387  .   .  Aisopos Villa  Albani,  Rome 

388  .  .  Anakreon  Standing  .    .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

389  .  .  Anakreon  Seated  .    .    .  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

390  .    .  Anakreon,  head Museum,  Berlin 

39ia    .  Miltiades Louvre,  Paris 

391^    .  Menelaos Vatican,  Rome 

392  .    .  Homer Museum,  Naples 

393  .    .  "  Sappho,"  bronze Museum,  Naples 

3940    .  "  Sappho,"  marble British  Museum,  London 


Portraits  Possibly  From  Life. 

394<5  .  Aspasia Vatican,  Rome 

395  .  .  Aischines Museum,  Naples 

396  .  .  Alexander,  head Museum,  Boston 

397  .  .  Alexander,  often  called  head  of  Helios  .    .    .  Capitoline,  Rome 

398  .  .  Alexander,  bust Louvre,  Paris 

399  .  .  Alexander,  statue Glyptothek,  Munich 

"Alexander"  head,  British  Museum,  London,  Plate  479^ 

400  .  .  Berenike Museum,  Naples 

401  .  .  Demosthenes Vatican,  Rome 

40212  .  Euripides Museum,  Naples 

402^  .  Euripides Museum,  Berlin 

4030  .  Euripidies Museum,  Mantua 

403^  .  Menander  (?)  Virgil  (?) Museum,  Boston 

4040  .  Artemisia British  Museum,  London 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  xxvil 

404^    .  Maussollos British  Museum,  London 

405  .    .  Menander Vatican,  Rome 

4060    .  Perikles Vatican,  Rome 

406^    .  Perikles .  British  Museum,  London 

407  .    .  Phokion •    ...    Vatican,  Rome 

408  .    .  Plato Museum,  Berlin 

409  .   .  Poseidippos Vatican,  Rome 

410  .    .  Ptolemy Museum,  Naples 

41  \a    .  Sokrates Capitoline,  Rome 

41 1£    .  Sokrates  and  Seneca Museum,  Berlin 

412  .    .  Sophokles Lateran,  Rome 

413  .    .  Unknown  Man  Leaning  on  His  Spear Terme,  Rome 

II.     ROMAN  PORTRAITS. 
Portraits  of  Men. 

.  Agrippa Louvre,  Paris 

.  Portrait  of  Unknown  Man Glyptothek,  Munich 

415  .    .  Antinoos  (colossal) Vatican,  Rome 

416  .    .  Antinoos  Mandragone Louvre,  Paris 

417  .    .  Antinoos Villa  Albani 

418  .    .  Augustus  from  Prima  Porta Vatican,  Rome 

419  .    .  Augustus,  standing,  dressed  in  toga Louvre,  Paris 

420*1  .  Augustus,  head  ....  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

420^    .  Augustus Vatican,  Rome 

4210    .  Brutus  II Museum,  Naples 

42 1  b     .  Young  Marcus  Aurelius Capitoline,  Rome 

4223    .  Caesar Museum,  Naples 

422^    .  Caesar Louvre,  Paris 

4230    .  Caesar  (front) British  Museum,  London 

423^    .  Caesar  (profile) British  Museum,  London 

424^    .  Caligula Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

424^  .  Antoninus  Pius  ....  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

4250    .  Caracalla Museum,  Naples 

425^    .  Commodus Palazzo  dei  Conservator!,  Rome 

426  .    .  Cicero Vatican,  Rome 

427  .    .  Germanicus Louvre,  Paris 


XXVlll  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

428  .    .  Marcus  Aurelius  (equestrian)    .    .  Square  of  the  Capitol,  Rome 

4290    .  Pompey Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

429^    .  Hadrian Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Portraits  of  Women. 

430  .  .  Agrippina,  the  Elder  (bust) Capitoline,  Rome 

431  .  .  Agrippina  (?) Museum,  Naples 

432  .  .  Seated  Woman,  "Agrippina" Capitoline,  Rome 

433  .  .  Seated  Woman,  "  Agrippina  " Villa  Albani,  Rome 

434  .  .  Faustina Villa  Albani,  Rome 

435  .  .  Livia  "  Pudicitia  " Vatican,  Rome 

Portraits  of  Unknown  Men  and  Women. 

436  .    .  Unknown  Man,  terra  cotta  head  (front)  .    .    .  Museum,  Boston 

437  .    .  Unknown  Man,  terra  cotta  head  (profile)    .    .  Museum,  Boston 

438  .    .  Two  Unknown  Women,  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

See  also  Plate  329* 


GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  XXIX 


Part  Eleven. —  Heads. 


PLATES  439-500.     For  Portrait  Heads  see  Part  X. 

I.     MYCENAEAN  AGE. 
For  heads  of  this  period  see  Part  I. 

II.     ARCHAIC  PERIOD. 

439  .  .  Head  of  a  Youth,  marble    ....  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

440  .  .  Head  of  a  Youth,  marble    ....  Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

441  .  .  Head  of  a  Youth,  "  Speusippos,"  bronze  .    .    .  Museum,  Naples 

442  .  .  Bearded  Warrior       Akropolis  Museum,  Athens 

443  .  .  Profile  Views  of  440  and  442 

444  .  .  Bearded  and  Once  Helmeted  Head,  front  and 

profile Museum,  Berlin 

445  .    .  Artemis  (?) Museum,  Boston 

III.     TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD. 
Heads  of  Men. 

446  .  .  Apollo  of  Olympia Museum,  Olympia 

447  .  .  "  Apollo,"  marble Louvre,  Paris 

448  .  .  "  Apollo,"  marble  bust Museum,  Naples 

4490  .  "  Apollo,"  marble Glyptothek,  Munich 

4493  .  "Apollo,"  bronze Museum,  Naples 

4500  .  "Apollo"  (lakchos),  marble    .    .    .    .  British  Museum,  London 

450*5  .  Bearded  Man,  "  Dionysos,"  marble  .    British  Museum,  London 

45 1 a  .  Youth,  style  of  Myron Palazzo  Riccardi,  Florence 

451^  .  Youth,  style  of  Myron,  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

Heads  of  Women. 

4520    .  Akroterion  Head  of  Woman,  Aigina     .    .  Glyptothek,  Munich 

452^     .  Athena,  East  Pediment,  Aigina Glyptothek,  Munich 

453  .    .  Head  of'Penelope". Museum,  Berlin 


XXX  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

IV.     FIFTH  CENTURY. 
Heads  of  Men. 

4540  .  "Apollo" Louvre,  Paris 

454*  .  Youth,  marble Museum,  Berlin 

455  .  .  Delian  Diadoumenos,  head  ....  National  Museum,  Athens 

456  .  .  Youth,  marble Museum,  Berlin 

4570  .  Doryphoros,  bronze  herme Museum,  Naples 

Heads  of  Women. 

457^  .  Amazon,  bronze  herme Museum,  Naples 

458  .  .  Lemnian  Athena Museum,  Bologna 

459  .  .  Athena,  painted  eyes,  marble Vatican,  Rome 

460  .  .  Goddess,  Weber  Head Laborde  Collection,  Paris 

461  .  .  Hera  Farnese,  marble Museum,  Naples 

462  .  .  Hera,  marble Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg,  Copenhagen 

463  .  .  Hera  from  Argos,  marble Museum,  Athens 

V.     FOURTH  CENTURY. 
Style  of  Praxiteles. 

464  .    .  Eubouleus,  marble National  Museum,  Athens 

465  .    .  Hermes  of  Andros National  Museum,  Athens 

466  .    .  Hermes  of  Praxiteles Museum,  Olympia 

467  .    .  Hypnos British  Museum,  London 

468  .    .  Head  of  Woman,  marble Museum,  Boston 

Style  of  Skopas. 

469  .    .  Tegea  Heads National  Museum,  Athens 

4700    .  Woman,  replica  of  Plate  471 Museum,  Berlin 

470^    .  Head  of  Youth,  marble Museum,  Boston 

471  .    .  Woman  from  Slope  of  Akropolis,  marble  .    .  Museum,  Athens 

Styles  of  Various  Artists. 

472  •  .  Asklepios  of  Melos British  Museum,  London 

473^    .  Eirene  and  Ploutos Glyptothek,  Munich 

4731$    .  Grace  from  Group  in  Siena    ....  Opera  del  Duomo,  Siena 
474  .    .  Hera  Ludovisi Terme,  Rome 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE.  XXXI 

47 Sa    .  Head  of  Woman,  Maussolleion     .    .  British  Museum,  London 
475^    .  Head  of  Woman,  marble    ..." Terme,  Rome 

476  .    .  Head,  resembling  Knidian  Demeter     ....  Museum,  Berlin 

VI.     HELLENISTIC  PERIOD. 
Heads  of  Men. 

477  .  .  Anytas  by  Damaphon National  Museum,  Athens 

478  .  .  Apollo  Belvedere Vatican,  Rome 

4790  .  Apollo  Musagetes,  marble British  Museum,  London 

479^  ."  Alexander"  Head British  Museum,  London 

480  .  Pourtal&s  Apollo  (front  and  profile)  .  British  Museum,  London 

481  .  Athlete,  bronze  (front  and  profile) Louvre,  Paris 

482  .    .  Athlete,  professional  (bronze)    .    .     National  Museum,  Athens 

4830    .  Centaur,  marble Vatican,  Rome 

4833    .  God  (sea  deity),  marble Vatican,  Rome 

484  .  .  Laokoon Vatican,  Rome 

485  .  .  Satyr,  bronze  bust Glyptothek,  Munich 

486  .  .  Youth  from  Antikythera,  bronze  .  National  Museum,  Athens 

487  .  .  Zeus  Otricoli Vatican,  Rome 

Heads  of  Women. 

488^  .  Aphrodite  of  Capua,  marble Museum,  Naples 

488^  .  Nike  of  Brescia,  bronze Museum,  Brescia 

489  .  .  Artemis  by  Damophon,  marble    .    .  National  Museum,  Athens 

490  .  .  Athena  by  Euboulides National  Museum,  Athens 

491  .  .  Ariadne,  sleeping  (marble) Terme,  Rome 

492  .  .  Demeter  by  Damophon National  Museum,  Athens 

493  .  .  Head  from  Cyprus,  marble Museum,  Berlin 

494  .  .  Head  of  Woman,  marble  (front  and  profile)  .  Museum,  Boston 

495  .  .  "Medusa"  Ludovisi Terme,  Rome 

496  .  .  Medusa  Rondanini Glyptothek,  Munich 

497  .  .  Medusa,  winged,  sleeping Louvre,  Paris 

VII.     GR^ECO-ROMAN,  ECLECTIC  AND  IMITATIVE  SCULPTURE. 

498  .    .  Dionysos,  bearded,  archaistic Museum,  Naples 

499  .    .  Zeus  Talleyrand 7  Louvre,  Paris 

500  .    .  Realistic  Head National  Museum,  Athens 


List  of  Plates  According  to  Places. 


ATHENS,  Akropolis  Museum:  19,  21,  23-31,  34,  35,  37,  40-42,  56,  57, 

93,  i4ob,  170,  171,  439,  440,  442,  443. 

National  Museum :  4, 7-13, 15, 20,  32,  38,66,  97, 98,  115, 178,  191, 
210-212,  240-242,  244,  255,  279,  287,  290,  304,  307,  34ga,  350, 
351.  354b,  357,  36o>  362-364,  368-371,  374,  377,  455,  463-465, 
469,  471,  477,  482,  486,  489,  490,  492,  500. 

Burial  Grounds  Outside  the  Dipylon  Gate:  359,  365,  372,  373. 
Lysikrates  Monument:  253. 
Parthenon:  142-156. 
Theseion :  92b,  130-133. 
BENEVENTUM,  Arch  of  Trajan :  338. 

BERLIN,  Neues  und  Altes  Museum:  i7b, 48b,  gga,  103,  118, 127, 180, 
181,  214,  252,  273,  274,  300,  352,  353,  354a,  3673,  376,  390.  4O2b, 
408,  41  ib,  444,  453,  454^  456,  47oa,  476,  493. 
Pergamon  Museum :  265-268. 
BOLOGNA,  Museo  Civico:  458. 
BOSTON,  Museum  of  Fine  Arts:  124,  183,  232,  243,  319,  320,  396, 

4°3b,  436,  437,  445>  468,  47ob,  494. 
BRESCIA,  Museo  Patrio:  301,  488b. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.  S.  A.,  Fogg  Museum  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity: 215. 

CANDIA,  Crete,  Museum:  5. 
CASSEL,  Museum  Fridericianum :  68. 
CONSTANTINOPLE,  Imperial  Museum:  112,308,378-386. 
COPENHAGEN,  Glyptothek  Ny  Carlsberg:    55,  77,  106,  109,  n6b, 
249,  250,  292b,  305,  317,  356,  361,  388,  389,  42oa,  424,  429,  438, 
45ib,  462. 
CRETE,  Candia :  5 
Knossos:  i. 
Phaistos:  2. 


LIST  OF  PLATES.  XXxiii 


DEEPDENE,  England: 

DELPHI,  Museum  °.  43,  44,  60,  234. 

DRESDEN,  Albertinum:  95,  128,  208. 

FLORENCE,  Archaeological  Museum:  123,  3253,  327,  330. 

Loggia  de  Lanzi  :  277,  y.^. 

Palazzo  Riccardi:  451  a. 

Uffizi  Gallery:  202,  220,  222,  224,  225!),  260,  283,  288,  331,  332. 
KASSEL,  see  Cassel. 

LONDON,  British  Museum  :  6,  16,  173,  33,  36,  45,  52,  53,  61,  65!),  67, 
ioo,  114,  117,  i22b,  136-141,  157,  159-164,  166,  169,  172-176, 
193,  200,  217,  218,  228-231,  247,  269!),  284,  310,  329!},  394a,  404, 
4o6b,  423,  450,  467,  472,  475a,  478,  480. 

Lansdowne  House:  119. 
MADRID,  Prado  :  96,  i  i6a,  324. 
MANTUA,  Museo  Civico:  403^ 

MUNICH,  Glyptothek:  14,  71,  78-83,  i26a,  184,  iggb,  206,  223,  227, 
2383,  2453,  254,  280,  313,  399,  414^  4493,  452,  473a,  485,  496. 

MYKENAI,  Citadel  Gate  :  3. 

NAPLES,  Museo  Nazionale:  58,  59,69,76,  io2a,  113,  179,  194,  219, 
236,237,248,  251,  262-264,  271,  281,  2823,  289,  293,  312,  315, 
316,  349^  392,  393,  395,  400,  4023,  410,  42ia,  422a,  425a,  431, 
441,  448,  449b,  457,  461,  4883,  498. 

OLYMPIA,  Museum  :  46,  84-923,.  no,  190,  446,  466. 
PALERMO,  Museo  Nazionale:  47,  483,  49-5  ib. 
PARIS,  Bibliotheque  Nationale:  1220. 
E'cole  des  Beaux  Arts:  101. 
Laborde  Collection  :  460. 

Louvre:  18,  22,39,  54,  990,  107,  108,  1223,  125,  158,  186,  196,  203, 
207,  2253,  23Sb,  2450,  286,  291,  2923,  296,  299,  302,  305,  314.  323, 
355»  358>  39^,398,  4i4a,4I6,  4^.  422b,  427,  447,  454^  481,  497, 
499. 


xxxiv  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

ROME,  Capltoline  Museum:  120,  188,  195,  201,  20913,  257,  258,  2693, 
2?5>  3°6'  397.  4"a,  42ib,  430,  432. 

Palazzo  dei  Conservator!  (New  Capitoline  Museum):  72,  318, 
325!},  326,  340,  344,  425^ 

Square  of  the  Capitol :  428. 

Piazza  Colonna :  336!),  342,  343. 

Forum :  334,  335,  337,  345,  346,  347. 

Forum  of  Trajan :  336a. 

Lancellotl  Palace:  63. 

Lateran  Museum  :  653,  239,  339,  412. 

Temple  of  Minerva :  348. 

Monte  Cavallo:  129. 

Museo  Nazionale  delle  Terme:  70,  94,  ggb,  197,  213,  226,  259, 
276,  282b,  322,  333,413.  474,  475b,  491.  495- 

Museo  Torlonia:  75. 

Vatican:  62,  73,  74, 104,  105,  121,  i26b,  167,  182,  185,  187,  189, 
192,  198,  igga,  216,  221,  233,  235,  245^  246,  256,  270,  272,  278, 
285,  294,  295,  297,  298,  328,  341,  375,  39ib,  394^  401,  405,  4o6a, 
407,  409,  415,  418,  42ob,  426,  435,  459,  478,  483,  484,  487. 

Villa  Albani :  1020,  309,  311,  321,  366, 36/b,  387,  417,  433,  434. 

Villa  Borghese  merged  into  the  Museo  Nazionale  delle  Terme. 
SIENA,  Opera  del  Duomo :  2093,  473b. 
SYRACUSE,  Museum :  204. 
VIENNA,  Kunsthistorisches  Hofmuseum:  177,205. 


CHRONOLOGICAL   LIST  OF  ARTISTS. 


xxxv 


Chronological   List  of  Important  Artists 

BASED    LARGELY    ON    ANCIENT    LITERATURE. 


IN  CRETE 
Daidalos 
Dipoinos 
Skyllis 


Largely  Mythical. 
IN  ATHENS  IN  AIGINA 
Endoios  S  mills 


IN  SAMOS 

IN  CHIOS 

Rhoikos 

Melas 

Theodores 

Mikkiades 

Telekles 

Archermos 

Botades 

Boupalos 

"' 

Athenis 

IN  ARGOS 

IN  SIKYON 

IN  AIGINA 

Ageladas 
Glaukos 

Kanachos 
Aristokles 

Kallon 

Onatas 

Dionysios 

Glaukias 

IN  RHEGION 
Pythagoras 

(born  in  Samos) 


Archaic  Period. 

IN  ATHENS     IN  ELIS 
Antenor          Kallon 
Hegias 

Aristokles  IN  RHEGION 
Klearchos 

Transitional  Period. 

IN  ATHENS 
Kritios 
Nesiotes 
Kalamis 
Myron 

(born  in  Eleu^erai) 


Fifth  Century. 

IN  ATHENS       IN  ARGOS  AND  SIKYON 
Pheidias  Polykleitos 

Alkamenes  Kanachos 

Agorakritos  Daidalos 


(born  in  Paros)          Naukydes 


IN  VARIOUS  PLACES 
Paionios  of  Mende 
Theokosmos  of  Megara 
Styppax  of  Kypros 
Kresilas  of  Crete 


GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 


Kolotes 
Praxias 
Androsthenes 
Lykios. 


Strongylion 
Kallimachos 
Demetrios  of  Alopeke 


Fourth  Century. 


ATHENS 


Kephisodotos  Bryaxis 

Skopas  Silanion 

(born  in  Paros)      Polyeuktos 
Praxiteles 
Leochares 


ARGOS  AND 
SIKYON 

Lysippos 


VARIOUS  PLACES 

Thrasymedes 

Timotheos 

Sthennis 

(born  in  Olynthos) 
Euphranor 


Lysistratos 
Eutychides 
Boethos 


Hellenistic  Period  and  Later. 

Chares 
Damophon 


From  this  time  on  the  importance  of  the  individual  artists  waned 
before  the  importance  of  the  local  centres  to  which  they  were  attached. 
The  best  known  of  these  centres  were : 


Pergamon 


Priene 


Rhodes 


Trail  es 


Famous  names  of  the  late  sculptors  are  : 

Pasiteles  Aristeas 

Stephanos  Papias 

Glykon 


Menelaos 

Arkesilaos 

Zenodoros 


Salpion 
Kleomenes 


Sosibios 

Apollonios  of  Tralles 
Tauriskos 
Apollonios  of  Athens 


BRIEF  BIBLIOGRAPHY.  XXXVli 


Brief  Bibliography  of  Greek  and  Roman  Sculpture 

AND    LIST    OF    ABBREVIATIONS    EMPLOYED    IN    REFERRING 
TO    SOME    OF    THE    BOOKS. 


A  short,  selected  and  graded  bibliography  is  given  in  E.  von  Mach, 

PP-  343ff- 

A  larger  and  very  well  arranged  bibliography  is  given  A.  J.  A.t 
Second  Series,  Vol.  I,  1897,  Appendix,  pp.  I28ff. 

The  most  complete  bibliography  is  contained  in  the  Katalog  der 
Bibliothek  des  Kaiscrlich  Deutschen  Archceologischen  Instituts  in  Rom 
von  August  Mau.  Two  volumes.  This  catalogue,  which  is  very  full, 
although  it  lacks  the  names  of  some  important  English  books,  ought  to 
be  in  every  library. 

Bibliographies  to  special  subjects  are  given  in  the  introductions  to 
the  several  parts  of  the  Handbook  and  in  the  discussions  of  the  several 
monuments. 

The  following  list  contains  the  names  of  some  of  the  books  which 
those  interested  in  Greek  and  Roman  sculpture  will  find  most  useful. 
High  priced  books  are  mentioned  only  when  less  expensive  good  books 
are  not  in  existence.  In  the  cases  where  the  names  of  more  than  one 
book  on  a  given  subject  are  listed,  the  descriptive  notes  will  guide  the 
student. 

GENERAL  BOOKS. 

H.  von  Brunn;  Geschichte  der  Griechischen  Kiinstler  ;  Bninn;  Stuttgart. 

$5.00.     Excellent,  and  although  written  about  fifty  years  ago,  still 

essentially  accurate. 
M.  Collignon;  Histoire  de  la  Sculpture  Grecque  ;  Firmin,  Dido  et  Cie. ; 

Paris,  France.     $12.00.     Beautifully  illustrated,  written  by  a  sound 

scholar,  who  also  is  a  master  of  style Collignon 

Fowler  &   Wheeler;    Greek   Archaeology.     In   preparation.     American 

Book  Company. 


xxxviu          GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

A.  Furtwangler,  translated  and  edited  by  Eugenie  Sellers;  Masterpieces 
of  Greek  Sculpture  ;  Heinemann;  London.  $15.00.  Invaluable  to 
advanced  students  of  classical  archaeology.  Brilliant  and  stimu- 
lating, but  not  always  convincing  .  .  Masterpieces  or  Furtwangler 

Ernest  A.  Gardner ;  A  Handbook  of  Greek  Sculpture  ;  The  Macmillan 
Co.;  New  York  City.  $2.50.  Reliable,  up-to-date,  almost  com- 
plete   Gardner 

W.  Liibke,  translated  by  R.  Sturgis ;  History  of  Sculpture  ;  Dodd  & 
Mead  Co.;  New  York  City.  $10.00.  The  best  short  history  of 
the  sculpture  of  the  world. 

Edmund  von  Mach ;  Greek  Sculpture,  Its  Spirit  and  Principles  ;  Ginn 
&  Co. ;  Boston.  $4.50,  for  teachers  and  classes  $2.25.  E.  von  Mach 

Anton  Springer,  revised  by  Adolf  Michaelis ;  Handbuch  der  Kunstge- 
schichte,  Vol.  I,  Das  Altertum;  E.  A.  Seemann ;  Leipsig.  $2.00. 
Brief,  up-to-date,  with  excellent  illustrations.  One  of  the  most 
useful  books  for  the  beginner.  It  discusses  not  only  sculpture, 
but  also  painting,  architecture  and  the  minor  arts  .  .  .  Michaelis 

A.  S.  Murray;  History  of  Greek  Sculpture ;  John  Murray;  London. 
$9.00.  Original  and  interesting 

Johannes  Overbeck;  Geschichte  der  Griechischen  Plastik;  J.  C.  Ilin- 
rich;  Leipsig.  $9.00.  The  most  complete  and  scholarly  work  on 
the  subject ;  no  view  is  advanced  which  is  not  fully  supported  by 
argument • Overbeck 

P.  Paris,  translated  by  Jane  E.  Harrison;  Manual  of  Ancient  Sculpture  ; 
J.  B.  Lippincott  Co. ;  Philadelphia.  $3.00.  An  interesting  gen- 
eral introduction  to  the  subject. 

Max  G.  Zimmerman ;  Kunstgeschichte  des  Altertums  und  des  Mittel- 
alters ;  Velhagen  &  Klasing;  Leipsig.  $2.50.  It  deserves  the 
same  high  praise  as  Springer's  Handbuch  •  .  .  .  .  Zimmermann 

F.  B.  Tarbell ;  A  History  of  Greek  Art,  with  an  introductory  chapter  on 
art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia;  The  Macmillan  Co.;  New  York 
City.  $1.00.  A  short,  accurate  and  fully  illustrated  compendium. 

Tarbell 

BOOKS  ON  SPECIAL  TOPICS. 

H.  R.  Hall;  The  Oldest  Civilization  of  Greece;  David  Nutt ;  London. 
$3.00.  A  very  detailed  account  of  the  arguments  on  which  the. 
accepted  accounts  of  the  Mycenaean  Age  are  based. 


BRIEF  BIBLIOGRAPHY.  xxxix 

Chr.  Tsountas  and  J.  I.  Manatt;  The  Mycenaan  Age ;  Houghton, 
Mifflin  &  Co. ;  Boston.  $6.00.  The  standard  book  in  English. 

C.  Schuchhardt,  translated  by  Eugenie  Sellers;  Schliemanrfs  Excava- 
tions; The  Macmillan  Co.;  New  York.  $4.00.  The  most  con- 
venient reference  book  to  the  excavations  of  Schliemann. 

A.  Joubin ;  La  Sculpture  Grlcque  entre  les  Guerres  Mediques  ft  I' 
Epoque  de  Pericles;  Hachette  &  Co.;  Paris.  #2.50.  A  full  and 
interesting  account  of  this  period. 

M.  Collignon;  Phidias;  Librairie  de  1'  Art;  Paris.  $0.7 5.  Short 
biography  and  discussion  of  the  works  of  Pheidias. 

Adolf  Michaelis;  Der  Parthenon  ;  Breitkoff  &  Hartel ;  Leipsig.  $7.50. 
The  standard  book  on  the  Parthenon. 

A.  S.  Murray;  The  Sculptures  of  the  Parthenon;  E.  P.  Button  &  Co.; 
New  York.  $6.50.  The  last  book  of  an  original  scholar  who 
knew  and  loved  the  Parthenon  sculptures  well. 

Charles  Waldstein  ;  Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias  ;  Century  Co. ;  New 
York.  $7.50.  In  part  brilliant  and  always  interesting. 

Th.  Davidson ;  The  Parthenon  Frieze ;  Kegan  Paul ;  London.  $2.00. 
Very  interesting,  but  not  generally  accepted  as  trustworthy  in 
every  detail. 

A.  Mahler;  Polyklet  und  Seine  Schule ;  Earth;  Athens  and  Leipsig. 
$2.25.  The  most  recent  scholarly  discussion  of  the  works  of 
Polykleitos. 

P.Paris;  Polyclete  ;  Librairie  de  1' Art ;  Paris.  $0.85.  Short  biography 
and  discussion  of  the  works  of  Polykleitos. 

W.  Klein ;  Praxiteles ;  Veil  &  Co. ;  Leipsig.  $6.00.  The  most  ex- 
haustive book  on  Praxiteles,  advancing  many  as  yet  untested 
theories. 

W.  Klein ;  Praxitelische  Studien  ;  Veit  &  Co. ;  Leipsig.  $0.90.  Sup- 
plementary to  the  larger  work  by  the  same  author. 

A.  Kalkmann,  Die  Proportionen  des  Gesichtes ;  Georg  Reimer;  Berlin. 

H.  Magnus;  Die  Darstellung  des  Auges  in  der  Antiken  Plastik ;  See- 
mann ;  Leipsig.  $0.35. 

J.  Overbeck  (collected  by) ;  Die  Antiken  Schriftquellen  zur  Geschichte 
der  Bildenden  Kiinste  bei  den  Grief  hen ;  Engelmann ;  Leipsig. 
$2.50.  The  untranslated  references  of  ancient  authors  to  Greek  art 
collected  and  arranged.  The  serious  student  cannot  do  without 
this  book S.  Q. 


xl  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

H.  Stuart-Jones  ;  Select  Passages  from  Ancient  Writers  Illustrative  of 
the  History  of  Greek  Sculpture ;  The  Macmillan  Co.;  New  York. 
$1.50.  This  book  is  less  comprehensive  than  the  preceding.  It 
is,  however,  very  valuable  because  the  Latin  or  Greek  passages  are 
given  side  by  side  with  the  English  translations  .  .  Stuart-Jones 

L.  Urlichs;  Skopas,  Leben  und  Werke ;  C.  A.  Koch;  Greifswald. 
$1.50.  Somewhat  antiquated. 

E.  Lowy;  Lysipp  und  Seine  Stdlung  zur  Griechischen  Plastik  ;  Richter; 
Hamburg.  $0.35.  Very  sound. 

Fr.  Hauser  ;  Die  Neuattischen  Reliefs  ;  M.  Wittwer;  Stuttgart.  $1.50. 
Invaluable. 

Th.  Schreiber ;  Die  Hellenistischen  Reliefbilder ;  W.  Engelmann ; 
Leipsig.  $9.00.  Invaluable. 

Franz  Wickhoff,  translated  by  Mrs.  S.  A.  Strong;  Roman  Art ;  The 
Macmillan  Co. ;  New  York.  $8.00.  The  fullest  discussion  of  the 
principles  of  Roman  art,  but  along  lines  that  have  found  only 
partial  approval Wickhoff 

A.  Mau,  translated  by  F.  W.  Kelsey;  Pompeii,  Its  Life  and  Art ;  The 
Macmillan  Co.;  New  York.  $2.50 Mau-Kelsey 

Percy  Gardner ;  Sculptured  Tombs  of  Hellas ;  Macmillan  &  Co;  Lon- 
don. $8.00.  Accurate  and  extremely  interesting. 

J.  J.  Bernoulli,  Romische  Ikonography,  W.  Speemann ;  Stuttgart.  $24. 50. 
"  Indispensable  for  the  study  of  Roman  portraiture." 

J.  J.  Bernoulli;  Griechische  Ikonography ;  W.  Speemann;  Stuttgart. 
"  Indispensable  for  the  study  of  Roman  portraiture." 

K.  Jex-Blake  and  Eugenie  Sellers;  The  Elder  Pliny's  Chapters  on  the 
History  of  Art ;  The  Macmillan  Co. ;  New  York.  $3.50.  Excellent. 

E.  Lowy;  Inschriften  Griechischer  Bildhaucr ;  B.  G.  Teubner;  Leip- 
sig. #6.50  Invaluable  to  those  who  approach  ancient  sculpture 
through  the  study  of  individual  artists. 

R.  Lepsius  ;  Griechische 'Marmorstudien  ;  Abhandlungen  der  Berliner 
Akademie  der  Wissenschaften  1890;  Berlin.  51.50.  "A  treatise 
on  the  chief  marble  quarries  in  Greece  and  a  scientific  determina- 
tion of  the  marbles  employed  in  certain  Greek  statues."  Accepted 
as  correct  by  many,  but  not  by  all  authorities. 

Percy  Gardner;  Types  of  Greek  Coins;  The  University  Press;  Cam- 
bridge, Eng.  $8.00.  Perhaps  the  best  general  book  on  ancient 


BRIEF  BIBLIOGRAPHY,  xli 

E.  Babelon,  La  Gravure  en  Pierres  Fines  ;  Libraries  Imprimies  Reunies; 

Paris.     $0.80.     An  interesting  introduction. 
A.  Furtwangler;  Die  Antiken  Gemmen ;  Giesecke  und  Devrient;  Berlin 

and  Leipsig.     Almost  an  encyclopedia  on  gems. 
H.  Crosby  Butler;    The  Story  of  Athens  ;  The  Century  Co. ;  New  York. 

$2.40.     Very  interesting. 
E.  A.  Gardner;   Ancient  Athens ;   The  Macmillan  Co.;    New   York. 

$5.00.     An  excellent  account  of  ancient  Athens.    The  pictures, 

unfortunately,  are  poor. 
R.  Lanciani ;  Rome  in  the  Light  of  Discoveries ;  Houghton,  Mifflin  & 

Co. ;  Boston.     $6.00. 
J.  H.  Middleton ;  Ancient  Rome  ;  A.  &  C.  Black  ;  London.     $6.25. 

REFERENCE  BOOKS. 

Salomon  Reinach ;  Repertoire  de  la  Statuaire  Greque  et  Romaine.  Three 
volumes,1  volume  two  in  two  parts.  The  first  volume  is  a  reprint 
of  Clarac  and  is  often  called  Clarac  de  Poche  ;  E.  Lerou ;  Paris. 
$4.00.  A  collection  of  outline  reproductions  of  practically  all 
known  statues  of  Greek  and  Roman  sculpture,  well  arranged.  In- 
valuable. The  references  to  Reinach  will  enable  the  student  to 
see  at  a  glance  many  statu'es  similar  to  those  under  discussion. 

Reinach 

A.  Baumeister  (edited  by),  Denkmaler  des  Klassischen  Altertrtm,  three 
volumes;  R.  Oldenbourg;  Munich  and  Leipsig.  $21.00.  An 
excellent  encyclopedia  of  ancient  art,  architecture,  mythology  and 
biography Baumeister 

Chas.  B.  Gulick  ;  The  Life  of  the  Ancient  Greeks,  with  Especial  Refer- 
ence to  Athens ;  D.  Appleton  &  Co.;  New  York.  $1.40.  An  ex- 
cellent handbook. 

A.  van  Kampen;  Atlas  Antiquus ;  Justus  Perthes;  Gotha.  $0.80.  An 
excellent  pocket  atlas  with  index  of  about  seven  thousand  names. 

A.  D.  F.  Hamlin;  A  History  of  Architecture;  Longmanns,  Green  & 
Co. ;  New  York.  An  excellent  handbook. 


'Volume  III  reached  the  author  too  late  to  enable   him  to  insert 
many  references  in  the  Handbook. 


xlii  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  SCULPTURE, 


CATALOGUES. 

OF  CASTS. 

Carl  Friederichs,  revised  and  enlarged  by  Paul  Welters;  -Die  Gibsab- 
gusse  Antiker  Bildwerke  in  Historischer  Folge  Erkldrt ;  W.  Spee- 
mann  ;  Berlin.  $3.00.  A  treasure-house  of  sane,  sound,  inspiring 
information.  Invaluable  to  the  student  of  art F.  W. 

Edward  Robinson;  Catalogue  of  Casts,  Part  If  I,  Greek  and  Roman 
Sculpture,  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston  ;  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.; 
Boston.  $0.50.  Conveniently  arranged.  The  information  con- 
cerning provenience,  restorations,  etc.,  in  small  type  preceding  the 
discussions,  is  very  valuable.  The  Boston  Museum  contains  one 
of  the  best-selected  collections  of  casts  to  be  found  anywhere. 

Robinson 

OF   ORIGINALS. 

All  the  official  catalogues. 

The  following  unofficial  catalogues : 

W.  Amelung;  Die  Skulpturen  des  Vatikanischen  Museum  (Part  I 
ready)  Amelung 

W.  Amelung  ;  Fiihrer  durch  die  Antiken  in  Florenz. 

H.  Lechat ;  Au  Musee  de  /'  Akropole  d'  Athgnes. 

Th.  Schreiber  ;  Die  Antiken  Bild-werke  der  Villa  Ludovisi. 

Panofka  und  Gerhard;  Neapels  Antike  Bildwerke. 

Hiibner;  Die  Antiken  Bildwerke  in  Madrid. 

W.  Frohner;  Sculpture  Antique  du  Musee  Imperial  dti  Louvre. 

Frohner 

Hettner;  Die  Bildwerke  der  Kgl.     Antiken  Sammlung  zu  Dresden. 

W.  Helbig;  Guide  to  the  Public  Collections  of  Classical  Antiquities  in 
Rome  (translated  by  J.  F.  and  F.  Muirhead).  The  references  are 
to  the  English  edition  where  the  numbers  run  slightly  higher  than 
in  the  German  edition Helbig 

F.  Matz  and  von  Duhn ;  Antike  Bildwerke  in  Rom. 

0.  Benndorf  and  R.  Schone ;  Die  Antiken  Bildwerke  des  Lateranischen 

Museums. 
H.  Diitschke  ;  Antike  Bildwerke  in  Oberitalien. 

1.  N.  Svoronos;  Das  Athener  Nationalmuseum.    First  two  parts  ready. 


ARCHAEOLOGICAL  PUBLICATIONS.  xliii 


Archaeological  Publications  of  Importance 

AND    LIST    OF    ABBREVIATIONS    EMPLOYED    IN 
REFERRING    TO    THEM. 


AMERICA. 

American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  founded  in  1885.  Series  I,  Vols. 

I-XI  (1896).  Index  to  Series  I A.  J.  A.,  Series  I. 

Series  II  begins  with  Vol.  I,  1897.  Connected  with  the  Journal: 
(a)  Papers  of  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at  Athens, 
Vols.  I-VI  (to  1897);  (b)  Reports  of  the  Institute,  beginning  in 
I&79;  (c)  Papers  of  the  School  in  Rome,  Vol.  I  in  press.  A.  J.  A. 

Records  of  the  Past,  published  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  since  1902. 

ENGLAND. 

Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies.  Vol.  I,  published  in  1880.  Separate 
volumes  of  plates,  I-VIII J.H.S. 

Annual  of  the  British  School  at  Athens.  Vol.  I,  published  for  the 
year  1894-1895. 

Papers  of  the  British  School  at  Rome.     Vol.  I,  published  in  1902. 

GERMANY. 
EARLIER  THAN  1886. 

Archaologische  Zeitung.     Vol.  i  (published  in  1843)  to  Vol.  43  (1885). 

Index  Complete Arch.  Zeit. 

Annali  dell'  Institute.     Published  in  Italian  from  1829-1885.     Index 

Complete Annali 

NOTE.  The  Archaeological  Institute  at  Rome  was  at  first  unofficial 
and  international.  Later  it  became  the  Imperical  German  Archae- 
ological Institute. 

Monument!  Inediti,  volumes  of  plates  to  accompany  the  Annali. 

Man.  Ined. 


xliv  GREEK  AND   ROMAN  SCULPTURE. 

Mittheilungen  Athenische,  see  also  after  1886. 
Bulletino,  see  Mittheilungen  Romische,  since  1886. 

SINCE  1886. 
Jahrbuch  des  Kaiserlich  Deutschen  Archaologischen  Instituts. 

Jahrbuch 
Archaologischer  Anzeiger  appears  as  an  appendix  to  the  Jahrbuch,  but 

is  paged  separately Arch.  Anz. 

Mittheilungen   des    Kaiserlich    Deutschen   Archaologischen   Instituts, 

Romische  Abtheilung.     This  continues  the  Bulletino,  which  was 

published  from  1829-1885 Rom.  Alitth. 

Mittheilungen   des   Kaiserlich    Deutschen   Archaologischen    Instituts, 

Athenische  Abtheilung;    founded  in  1876,  and  continued  with  a 

slight  change  of  title  after  1886.    Index  to  Vols.  1-20.    A  then.  Mitth. 
Antike  Denkmaler,  a  collection  of  valuable  plates  published  at  irregular 

intervals Ant.  Denk. 

Erganzungshefte,  supplementary  volumes,  published   by  the   German 

Institute  at  irregular  intervals. 
(Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Archaologischen  Instituts  von  1829-1879, 

von  A.  Michaelis). 

A  number  of  valuable  articles  have  appeared  in  the  Winkclmannspro- 
gramms,  of  which  there  are  three  kinds  : 

Programm  zum  Winckelmannfeste  der  Archaologischen  Gessellschaft 

zu  Berlin.     First  number  published  in  1841. 
Hallisches  Winkelmannsprogramm,  Vol.  i,  published  in  1876.     Vols. 

1-13  by  H.  Heydemann.     Vols.  14-24  (the  last  one)  by  C.  Robert. 
Festschrift  zu  Winkelmanns  Geburtstage  herausgegeben  vom  Vorstande 

des  Vereins  von    Alterthumsfreunden    im    Rheinlande,  published 

from  1844-1888  at  irregular  intervals. 

NOTE.  Many  philological  journals  print  occasionally  articles  of  archae- 
ological importance,  notably  Hermes,  and  Rheinisches  Museum. 

Denkmaler  der  Griechischen  und  Romischen  Skulptur,  herausgegeben 
von  H.  Brunn,  fortgesetzt  von  P.  Arndt,  published  by  Bruckmann 
in  Munich.  A  collection  of  large  plates Brunn-Arndt 

AUSTRIA. 
Archaeologische   Epigraphische    Mittheilungen.     Vol.  I,   published   in 


ARCHAEOLOGICAL   PUBLICATIONS.  xlv 

1877,  last  volume  (XX)  in  1897.     Index  complete.     This  publica- 
tion has  been  superceded  by  the  following  : 

Jahreshefte  des  Oesterreichischen  Archaologischen  Istituts  in  Wien. 
Vol.  I,  published  in  1898    ........  Jh.  Oesterr.  Arch.  Inst. 

FRANCE. 

Bulletin  de  Correspondance   Hellenique.     Vol.  I,  published  in    1877. 

Index  to  the  years  1877-1886     .   .    .   ,    ........  B.  C.  H. 

Bibliotheque  des  Ecoles  Fran9aises  d'  Athenes  et  de  Rome.    Important 

monographs,  frequently  published,  Vol.  I  in  1877,  Vol.  89  in  1904. 
Histoire  et  1'   Oeuvre  de  1'  Ecole  Francaise  d'  Athenes  par  Georges 

Radet,  1901. 
Revue  Archeologique:     Series   I,  1844-1860.     Series   II,   1860-1882. 

Series  III,    1883-1902.     Series   IV,    1903.     Indexes  complete  to 

1890  .......................  Rev.  Arch. 

Gazette   Archeologique.      Vols.    1-14    (1875-1889).      This   journal   is 

announced  to  resume  publication   ..........  Gaz.  Arch. 

Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts.     Series  I,  1859-1868.     Series  II,  1869-1888. 

Series  III,  1889-    .............  Gaz.  d.  Beaux  Arts 

Revue  des  Etudes  Grecque.   First  volume  published  in  1888.   R.  £t.  Gr. 

ITALY. 

Bulletino  Archeologico  Neapolitano.     Series  I,  1843-1848.     Series  II, 

1853-1863.     Separate  volumes  of  plates. 
Bulletino  della  Commissione  Archeologica  Municipiale  di  Roma.     Vol. 

I,  published  in  1872.     Index,  1872-1885. 
Publications  of  the  Reale  Academia  del  Lincei   Monument!  Antichi. 

Vol.  I,  published  in  1889,  large  plates  and  text.     This  publication 

continues  the  Museo  Italiano  di  Antichita  Classica,  of  which  three 

volumes  were  published. 
Notizie  degli  Scavi  di  Antichita,  Vol.   I,  published  in   1876.     Index, 

1876-1900. 
Rendi  Conti. 

GREECE. 


,  TTJS  'ev  'Aflijj'cuj  "'A.pxa-ioXoyucTJs  'Erat/jfas.     Vol.  I,    published 
in  1871      .....................  Practika 

'E077/aepis   '  ApxatoXoyiK-^.     Published  at  irregular  intervals  from  1837  to 
1883,  and  since  then  yearly  .............  Ephemeris 


INDEX. 


Accouchment,     kneeling     woman 

awaiting,  100 
^Emilius  Paullus,  361 
Agasias,  son  of  Dositheos  of  Eph- 

esos,  316 
Agasias,  son  of  Menophilos  of  Eph- 

esos,  316 

Agathokles,  393,  PI.  35ob 
Agathon    and   Aristokrates,    stele 

of,  7 

Age  differentiation,  93 
Agesander,  291 
Agrippina,  Pis.  43off. 
Aigina,  figures  from  the  pediments 

of    the   temple   of,  86fL,   Pis. 

78ff.,  452 

Aigis,  origin  of,  364 
Aigistheus,  death  of,  56f.,  PI.  55 
Aischines,  PI.  395 
Aisopos,  portrait,  PI.  387 
Akropolis,  restoration  of,  PI.  134 
Akropolis  figures,  draped,  archaic, 

i8ff.,  Pis.  21,  23ff. 
Akroterion,  123 
Alabaster,  Assyrian   sculpture   in, 

i? 
Alexander,    Pis.    396f. ;    bust,    PI. 

398  ;  statue,  PI.  399 
"Alexander  "  head,  413,  PI.  479b 
Alkamenes,  94,  119,  126,  PI.  112 
Alkestis,  220 
Alpheios,  Zeus  Temple,  Olympia, 

goff.,  PI.  8sb 
Alxenor,  grave  relief  of,   393,   PI. 

394* 
Amazon,  dead,  Naples,  283ff.,  PI. 

262 
Amazon,  frieze,  Maussolleion, 

234fL,  Pis.  228ff. 
Amazon,    herm,    bronze,    407    PL 


Amazon,   mounted,  Boston,  256f., 

PI.  243 
Amazon,  mounted,   from    Epidau- 

ros,  255f.,  PI.  242 
Amazon,  wounded,  after  Polyklei- 

tos   (?)    I3iff.,    367,   407,    Pis. 

n8ff. 

Amazons,  fight  against,  163 
Amphion,  295;  in  group,  PI.  271 
Anadoumenos   by    Pheidias,    131  ; 

see  also  130,  PI.  117 
Anadyomene,   Aphrodite,  199,  PI. 

200 
"  Anakreon  "  seated,  262,  PI.  389  ; 

standing,  PI.  388  ;  head,  390 
Ananke  (Necessity),  330,  Note 
Andre  (restorer  of  the  Youth  from 

Antikythera,  PI.  290),  319 
Andros,  Hermes  of,  igif.,  Pis.  191, 

465 

Anima,  89 
Antae,  156 
Antenor,  6,  23 
Antikythera,  youth  from,  319^,  413, 

Pis.,  290,  486 
Antinoos,  colossal,  PI.  415;  Man- 

dragone,  PI.  416;  Albani,   PI. 

417 

Antioch,  see  Tyche  t>f  Antiocheia, 
274f.,  PI.  256 

Antiochos'  copy  of  the  Parthenos, 
io6ff.,  PI.  ggb 

Antonia  on  Ara  Pacis,  374 

Antoninus  Pius,  PI.  424b 

Anytas,  412,  PI.  477 

Aphaia,  90 

Aphrodite  statues :  Anadyomene, 
bronze  statuette,  British  Mu- 
seum, 199,  PI.  200;  of  Aries, 
2Oif.,  PI.  203;  in  Berlin,  116, 
PI.  103  ;  "  Capitoline  Venus," 


INDEX. 


xlvii 


Aphrodite  statues  —  Continued. 
2ocf.,  PI.  201  ;  of  Capua,  322, 
323f-.  33r>  4M.  Pis.  293,  488a; 
crouching,  Vatican,  324f.,  PL 
294 ;  of  Daidalos,  325  ;  "  Es- 
quiline  Venus,"  348f.,  PL  318; 
Kalipyge,  331  ;  of  Melos, 
32off.,  322,  Pis.  291,  292a; 
"Venus  de  Milo,"  discussion 
of  proper  name,  322  ;  in  Mu- 
nich, igSf.,  PL  1990;  in  Syra- 
cuse, 2O2f.,  PL  204  ;  "  Venus 
Genetrix,"  i2if.,Pl.  108  ;  "  Ve- 
nus dei  Medici,"  2Oof.,  PL  202  ; 
"  Venus  Victrix,"  202 

Aprodite  in  relief  of  Paris  and 
Helen,  34if.,  PL  312 

Apollo  :  in  apotheosis  of  Homer, 
339;  Barberini  Muse,  so-called, 
u6f.,  Text  111.  25;  Belvedere, 
286,  298ff.,  Pis.  272,  478  ;  Cas- 
sel,  73,  PL  68 ;  Musagetes, 
head,  PL  47ga;  in  Naples,  73, 
PL  69 ;  with  the  Omphalos, 
7off.,  PL  66  ;  Temple  of  Zeus, 
Olympia,  goff.,  Pis.  86,  446 ; 
Philesios  (?),  nff.,  PL  I7a ; 
from  Pompeii,  73,  PL  69 ; 
Sauroktonos,  185^,  Pis.  i85f., 
Text  111.  27 ;  Stroganoff,  of 
bronze,  299;  in  Terme,  73f. 
PL  70 

"Apollo:"  Archaic  statues,  8ff., 
Pis.  iibff. ;  Charioteer,  Bos- 
ton, 238ff.,  PL  232;  "Choi- 
seul-Gouffier,"  7 iff.,  PL  67; 
of  Eleusis  (  "  Sabouroff 
Apollo"),  i39f.,  PL  127 

Apollo  heads:  Louvre  head,  PL 
454;  Naples,  bust,  404,  PL 
448 ;  Naples,  bronze  head,  404, 
PL  4496;  Munich  head,  404, 
PL  449a;  Pourtales,  PL  480 

Apollo  misinterpreted  as  Muse, 
1 1 6,  ii7f.,  209,  Text  111.  25 

Apollo  with  Artemis,  Leto,  and 
Nike,  relief,  336ff.,  PL  309 

Apollonios  of  Rhodes,  295 


Apollonios,  son  of  Nestor,  261 

Apotheosis  of  Antoninus  and  Faus- 
tina, 386f.,  PL  341 

Apotheosis  of  an  empress,  385,  PL 
34ob 

Apotheosis   of   Homer,  338ff.,  PL 
310 

Apotygma,  85 

Apoxyomenos,  after  Lysippos, 
244f.,  PL  235 

Ara  Pacis  Augusti,  37iff.,   Frontis- 
piece and  Pis.  33iff. 

Arbitrary  solution  of  difficult  prob- 
lems, 213 

Arch  of  Trajan,  Beneventum,  382, 

PL  338 
Arch  of  Constantine,  reliefs  from, 

389f.,  Pis.  346f. 
Arch   of   Septimius   Severus,  389, 

PI-  345 
Arch   of  Titus,  two  panels  from, 

375ff.,  Pis.  334f. 
Archaic  sculpture,  5ff. 
Archaic  heads,  4O2ff.,  Pis.  439ff. 
Archaic  draped  figures   from   the 

Akropolis,  i8ff.,  Pis.  21,  23ff. 
Archaistic,  explanation  of  the  term, 

347 

Archaistic  heads,  418,  Pis.  4g8f. 
Archermos,  6,  25 
Architrave,  sculptured  decorations 

on,  35 
Ares:     Borghese,    I35f.,   PL    125; 

Ludovisi,    212,    PL    213;     in 

Roman  art,  286,  Note 
Arete  (Virtue),  339 
Arezzo  371 
Ariadne,    sleeping,    statue,    325^, 

PL  295 

Ariadne,  sleeping,  head,  PL  491 
Aristion,  grave  relief  of,  393,  PL 

35°a 

Aristogeiton,  63ff.,  PL  59 
Aristogeiton  and  Harmodios,  63ff., 

PL  58 
Aristogeiton  and  Harmodios,  vase 

in  Boston,  64 


xlviii 


INDEX. 


Aristokles,  stele  by,  393,  PI.  35oa 
Aristonautes,  grave  relief,  394,  PI. 

357 

Arkesilaos,  121 

Arms  of  men  and  women  con- 
trasted, H7f. 

"Arrotino,"  28if.,  PI.  260 

"Artemis"  head,  Boston,  403,  PI. 
445;  by  Damophon,  412,  PI. 
489 

Artemis,  Copenhagen  torso,  334, 
PI.  305  ;  of  Gabii,  2O4f.,  PI. 
207  ;  of  Versailles,  326,  PI. 
296;  Vienna  statuette,  203,  PI. 
205 ;  in  group  with  Apollo, 
Leto  and  Nike,  336ff.,  PI.  309 

Artemisia,  PI.  4©4a 

Artemis-Tyche,  203^,  PI.  206 

Asklepios  :  two  reliefs  after  Thrasy- 
medes,  254^,  PI.  241 ;  of  Me- 
los,  head,  PI.  472  ;  or  Zeus, 
I4of.,  PI  128 

Aspasia,  PI.  394b 

Assos,  reliefs  from,  35,  PI.  39 

Assyrian  man-headed  bulls,  144 

Atalanta,  vase-painting  of,  349 

Athena:  Aigina  Temple  pediment, 
88,  PI.  83;  Akropolis  Museum, 
compared  with  Parthenon 
sculptures,  32;  Albani,  H4f., 
PI.  io2c;  Archaistic,  Naples, 
347,  PI.  316;  Birth  of,  in  Ma- 
drid, 286,  Text  111.  30  ;  Bronze 
statue,  beaten  out  of  two 
sheets  of  metal,  28f.,  PL  34 ; 
Chiaramonti,  328,  PI.  298;  by 
Euboulides  (?),  414,  PI.  490; 
Farnese,  H4f.,  PI.  io2a;  Gius- 
tiniani,  327f.,  PI.  297  ;  Hope, 
i  I4f.,  PI.  iO2b ;  Lemnian,  cast, 
iO3ff.,  PI.  95;  head,  Bologna, 
PI.  458;  Medica,  wrong  name 
of  Athena  Giustiniani,  328  ; 
Medici,  1 1  iff .,  PI.  101 ;  "  Mourn- 
ing" or  "  Thinking,"  97ff.,  PI. 
93;  Parthenos,  copies  and 
adaptations,  io5ff.,  Pis.  96ff. ; 
Promachos,  28,  PI.  35  ;  Seated, 
Akropolis  Museum,  31,  PI.  37  ; 


of  Velletri,  120,  188,  PI.  107; 
Vatican  head,  painted  eyes, 
PI.  459 

Athena  and  Giant,  pedimental 
group,  42,  43,  PI.  42 

Athena-Nike  Temple,  "  Nike  Apt- 
eros"  Temple,  158^,  PI.  168; 
Balustrade,  Nike  figures  from, 
i59f.,  253,  Pis.  I7of.,  and  Text 
111.  29 ;  Slabs  from  the  West 
Frieze,  159,  PI.  169;  Slabs 
from  the  East  Frieze,  Text 
111.  37f. 

Athlete :  Dropping  oil  in  his  hand, 
I36f.,  337,  PI.  I26a;  Farnese, 
65,  Text  111.  15;  Louvre  head, 
bronze,  PL  481 ;  Mercure 
aptere,  statuette,  I34f.,  PI. 
I22a;  after  Pythagoras  (?), 
7off.,  Pis.  66f.,fromTarsos,  66; 
Professional,  bronze,  Athens 
PI.  482;  "  Westmacott,"  134^ 
PI.  I22b 

Atlas  metope,  Zeus  Temple,  Olym- 
pia,  94ff.,  PL  90 

Attalos  I,  277 

Attalos  II,  277 

Attalos  group,  283ff.,  Pis.  262ff. 

Attributes  added  by  copyists,  212 

Augeias,  Herakles  cleaning  the 
stables  of,  Olympia  metope, 
94ff.,  PI.  91 

Augustus,  on  Ara  Pacis,  373  ;  from 
Prima  Porta,  PL  418  ;  standing 
in  toga,  PL  419;  two  heads, 
PL  420 

Aurora  carrying  off  Kephalos,  124 

Bacchic  relief,  Naples,  222f.,  Plate 
219 

Bacchus,  301 

Bacchus,  see  Dionysos 

Background,  actuality  of,  not  con- 
sidered, 44f. 

Ball-player  (?),  230,  Plate  226 

Balustrade  of  Athena-Nike 

Temple,  159^,  Pis.  i7of.,  Text 
111.  29 


INDEX, 


xlix 


"Barberini  Faun,"  31  of.,  PI.  280 
"Barberini  Juno,"  n8f.,  PI.  105 
"Barberini  Muse,"  Ii6f.,  Text  111. 

25 
Base  (drum)  of  column  from  Ephe- 

sos,    sculptured,    archaic,   45, 

PI.  45  ;  fourth  century,  2i9ff., 

Pis.  2i7f. 
Base  from  Mantineia,  three  slabs, 

2o8ff.,  Pis.  2 1  off. 
Bearded  men,  statues  of,  76 
Beckoning  gesture  among  the 

Greeks,  221 
Bellerophon,  364 
Belvedere  torso,  26iff.,  PL  246 
Beneventum,  arch   of    Trajan   in, 

382.  PI-  338 

Berenike,  PI.  400 

"Birth  of  Aphrodite,"  relief  99ff., 
Plate  94 

Birth  of  Athena,  286,  Text  111.  30 

"  Blue   Beard,"    popular  name   of 
Typhon,  Athens,  41,  Plate  41  a 

Bobolini  Gardens,  athlete  in,  Text 
111.  14 

Boethos,  314;  boy  with  goose,  after, 
272,  PI.  254 

Boiotian  (?),  sculptor,  179 

Bonus  Eventus,  301 

Borghese  "Juno,"  n8f.,  PI.  106 

Borghese  warrior,  3i5f.,  PI.  286 

Boston,  statues  of  women  in,  346, 
Note,  35of.,  Pis.  319^ 

Boxer  (PI.  66)  copied  by  late  sculp- 
tor, 354 

Boxers  after  Pythagoras  ( ? ),  7off., 
PI.  66f. 

"Boy,"  Akropolis  Museum,  6iff., 
PI.  57 

Boy,  with  Goose,  after  Boethos  (?), 
2721.,  PI.  254;  "  L'Idolino," 
I34f.,  PL  123;  Praying,  Berlin, 
3Oof.,  PL,  273 ;  from  the  Rhine, 
bronze,  3Oif.,  PI.  274;  with 
thorn  in  his  foot,  London, 
31 3f.,  PI.  284;  with  thorne  in 
his  foot,  Rome,  76ff.,  Plate  72 


Boy  and  Girl,  "  Eros  and  Psyche," 

2O7f.,  PI.  2ogb 
Branchidai,    seated    figures  from, 

29ff.,  PL  36,  Text  111.  4 
Bronze  statues,  early,  beaten  out  of 

two  sheets  of  metal,  28f . 
Brutus  II,  PL  42 la 
Bryaxis,  232 
Bull  attacked  by  lions,  41,  PL  4ib 

Caesar,  portraits,  Pis.  422f. 
Calf-bearer,  131!.,  Plate  19 
Caligula,  PL  424 

Camillas  on  Ara  Pacis,  375,   Note 
Camillus,  3661.,  PL  326 
Campus  Martius,  385,  386 
Candlestick   of    Jerusalem,   seven 

armed,  378 
Cap  of  Hades,  115 
"  Capitoline  Venus,"  2oof.,  PI.  201 
Capua  despoiled,  361 
Capua,  Psyche  of,  267,  PL  251 
Caracalla,  PL  42 5a 
Carrey,  Jacques,  drawings  by,  149, 

Text  111.  22 

Cassel  Apollo,  73,  PL  68 
Cato  and  Porcia,  Vatican,  PL  375 
Centaurs,  36 
Centaurs,   copies  (?)    by   Aristeas 

and  Papias,  3O2f  ,  PL  275 
Centaurs,  fight  against,  163 
Centaur  head,  Vatican,  PI.  483a 
Centaurs  on    Olympian    metopes, 

goff.,  Pis.  87ff. 
Centaurs  on  Parthenon  metopes, 

153,  Pis.  i6off. 
Ceres,  see  Demeter 
Chairestratos,  son  of  Chairedemos 

of  Rhamnous,  332 
Characterization   of  types   in   the 

Attalos  group,  284 
Chares,  from  Branchidai,  29ff.,  PL 

3.6 
Chariot,  figure   mounting  a,    57f., 

PL  56 

Chariot  relief  at  Candia,  PI.  5 
Charioteer,  "Young  Apollo,"  Bos- 
ton, 238ff.,  Plate  232 


1 


INDEX. 


Charioteer  of  Delphi,  65,  67,  83, 
290,  PL  60 

Charioteer  of  small  mausolleion 
frieze,  238,  PL  231 

Cheramyes,  19 

Chimaera,  Etruscan  bronze,  358, 
363,  PI.  325a 

Chin,  long  archaic,  80 

Chiton,  Doric,  85 

«  Choiseul-Gouffier  Apollo,"  7iff., 
Plate  67 

Chronos  (Time),  338 

Cicero,  PI.  426 

Cincinnatus,  251 

Cocks  and  hens,  frieze  from  Xan- 
thos,  52,  PL  520 

Colossal  "Zeus"  in  Munich,  75f., 
PL  71 

Column:  "of  Antonine,"  378,  PL 
336b,  and  reliefs  from,  387, Pis. 
342f. ;  in  design  of  Athena 
Parthenos,  108;  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  378,  PL  336b;  reliefs 
from,  387,  Pis.  342f. ;  of  Tra- 
jan, 378,  PL  336a 

Commodus,  PL  425b 

Contrasts  liked  by  the  Greeks,  354 

Corner  capitals,  Ionic,  158,  Note 

Cups,  gold,  from  Vaphio,  2,  PL  8 

Cupid,  see  Eros 

Daidalos,  6;   three  artists  of  this 

name,  325 

Daidalos,  Aphrodite  by,  325 
Dallin,  Medicine  Man,  by,  270 
Damophon,    Drapery  by,    273,    PL 

255;  Heads  by,  412,  PL  477, 

489.  492 
Damasistrate,  grave  relief,  397,  PL 

373 
"  Dancers,"     from     Herculaneum, 

84f.,  183,  PL  76 
Dancing  woman  from  Athens,  336, 

PL  307 
Dancing   woman  from  Pergamon, 

336,  PL  308 

Death  of  Aigistheus,  56f.,  PL  55 
Delos,  Archaic  woman  from,  i6f., 


PL  20 ;  Draped  women  from, 
24f.,  PL  31  ;  Flying  figure 
from,  25ff.,  69,  PL  32 

Delphi,  Charioteer  of,  67f.,  PL  60; 
reliefs  from  the  frieze  of  treas- 
ury of  Knidos  in,  45,  PL  44; 
reliefs  from  the  treasury  of 
Sikyon  in,  43,  PL  43a ;  frieze 
from  the  Siphnos  (?)  treasury 
in,  43,  PI.  43b 

"  Demeter,"  (Ceres)  or  Hera,  117, 
183,  PL  104 

Demeter :  Copenhagen,  seated, 
265f.,  PL  249a ;  by  Damophon, 
412,  PI.  489;  of  Knidos,  263^, 
PL  247  ;  Head  resembling  PL 
247,  PL  476 

Demetrios  Phalereus,  392 

Demosthenes,  PL  401 

Dermys  and  Kitylos,  6,  PL  iia 

Dexileos,  grave  relief  of,  256,  396, 
PL  365 

Diadoumenos:  in  Copenhagen,  130, 
PL  n6b;  Delos  copy,  after 
Polykleitos,  129,  406,  Pis.  115, 
457a;  Farnese,  130,  139,  PL 
117;  in  Madrid,  130,  PL  n6a; 
Vaison  copy,  after  Polykleitos, 
i28f.,  PL  114 

Diana,  see  Artemis 

Dike  (Justice)  330 

"  Dionysos,"  head  of  bearded  man, 
London,  404,  PL  45ob 

Dionysos:  302;  Archaistic,bearded, 
418  ;  PL  498  ;  Infant  in  arms  of 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles,  191,  PL 
190 ;  Infant  in  arms  of  Silenos, 
3  replicas, 258ff.,  PL  245;  "Nar- 
kissos,"  I92ff.,  PL  194;  from 
Pergamon  alter,  frieze  of,  28  5ff ., 
PL  268a ;  "  Sardanapallos," 
i86f.,  PL  187;  Theatre  of,  dan- 
cing woman  from,  336,  PL 
307  ;  Variously  portrayed,  187; 
Visit  of,  343f.,  PL  315;  Youth- 
ful, Terme,  3O3ff.,  PL  276 

Dioskoroi,  Kastorand  Polydeukes, 
I4iff.,  PL  129 


INDEX. 


11 


Dirke,  295,  in  group,  PI.  271 
Discus-carrier  head,  PL  351 
Discus-thrower  statues   after   My- 
ron, 68ff.,  Pis.  6  iff.;  Combi- 
nation   cast,   and    Lancelotti, 
London  and  Vatican  copies 
Discus-thrower,  standing,  137^,  PL 

I26b 

Diskobolos,  see  discus-thrower 
Donatello's    treatment    of     wrist- 

action,  351 
Doryphoros,  I27f.,  406,    Pis.    113, 


Drachme,  255,  Note 

Draped   archaic  figures  from    the 

Akropolis,  i8ff..  Pis.  21,  23ff. 
Draped  archaic  figures  from    De- 

los,  24f.,  PL  31 
Draped  woman  in  Berlin,  "Aphro- 

dite," 1  1  6,  PL  103 
Draped  woman  from  Priene,  290, 

PL  26gb 
Drapery  by  Damophon,  fragment 

of,  273^,  PL  252 
Drum   of   column   from   Ephesos, 

sculptured,  archaic,  45,  PL  45 
Drum   of   column   from   Ephesos, 

sculptured,  fourth  century, 

2I9ff.,   Pis.  21  7f. 

Drusus,  on  Ara  Pacis,  373 
"  Dying  Gladiator,"    Dying   Gaul, 
278ff.,  Pis.  2571 

Ears  in  archaic  art,  1  5f  .,  79 

Eclectic  period,  345ff. 

Egypt,   borrowing   of    minor   arts 

from,  6 
Eirene  and  Ploutos,  after  Kephiso- 

dotos,  •  i82ff.,    187,   410,   Pis. 

184,  473a 
"  Elektra  "  with  "  Orestes,"  352ff., 

PL  322 
Elektra,  56f.  ;  on  an  inscribed  terra- 

cotta relief,  80 

Eleusis,  relief  from,  i69ff.,  PL  178 
Endoios,  6 

Endymion,  335f.,  343,  PL  306 
Ephesos,  sculptured  drum  of  col- 

umn, archaic,  45,  PL  45 


Ephesos,  sculptured  drum  of  col- 
umn, fourth  century,  2191!., 
PL  2i7f. 

Epidauros,  Amazon  from,  mounted, 
255f.,  PL  242  ;  Nereids  from, 
two  mounted,  257f.,  PL  244  ; 
Nike  figures  from,  two,  253, 
PL  240 

Erechtheion,  the,  153*!.,  PL  165, 
Text  111.  34  ;  Maiden  from  the, 
i55ff.,  348,  PL  1  66 

Eros:  probably  groupedwith  Aphro- 
dite of  Capua,  323  ;  with 
a  bow,  Capitoline,  i88f.,  PL 
188  ;  Centocelle,  i88f.,  PL 
189;  of  Praxiteles,  189,  222; 
in  Paris  and  Helen  relief,  34if., 
PL  312  ;  and  Psyche,  2O7f.,  PL 


"Esquiline  Venus,"  348f.,  PL  318 
Etruscan  art,  358,  Pis.  3251!. 
Eubouleus,  head,  Athens,  409,  PL 

464 

Eumenes  II,  277,317 
Euphranor,  304 

Euripides,  three  portraits,  PL  4O2f. 
Europa  and  the  bull,  frieze  of  the 

Siphnos  (?)  treasury,  44ff.,  PL 

43b  ;    metope    from    Selinus, 

258,  Text  111.  7 
Eurydike  and  Orpheus  relief,  48, 

173,  PL  179 
Euthymos,  72 

Everett,  Edward,  statue  of,  368 
Eyes  in  archaic  art,  icff. 

Face,  individual,  62 

Family  scenes,  grave  reliefs,  397, 
Pis.  368,  37off. 

Farnese:  Athena,  ii4f.,  PL  iO2a; 
"  Athletes,"  65ff.,  Text  111.  15; 
Bull  group,  293ff.,  PL  27  iff., 
Text  111.  44f.  ;  Diadoumenos, 
130,  PL  117;  "Flora,"  264^, 
PL  248;  Hermes,  192,  PL  193 

"  Fates,"  the,  from  Parthenon,  152, 
PL  138 

Faun,  see  Satyr 

Faustina,  PL  434 


Hi 


INDEX. 


Feet,  good  Greek,  bronze,  65 

Fifth  century  period,    io2ff.,    Pis. 

95ff. ;  Definition  of  term,  103  ; 

Heads,  4O5ff.,  Pis.  454ff. 

Fig-tree  in  Forum,  381 

Figure  flying  from  Delos,  69,  25ff., 

PI.   32 ;    mounting   a   chariot, 

S7f,  78,  PI.  56 

Figures  hugging  their  knees,  211 
Flamininus,  T.,  Quinctius,  361 
"  Flora  Farnese,"  264^,  PI.  248 
Flying  figure  from  Delos,  2$ff.,  69, 

PI.  32 

Foreshortening,    mistaken     allow- 
ance to,  32 

Forum,  Rome,  reliefs  in,  380,  PI.  337 
Fourth  century,  iSiff.,  i84ff.;  Heads, 

4o8ff.,  Pis.  464ff. 
Fra  Angelico,  175 
Freedom  of  pose,  136 
French.  John  Harvard  by,  270 
Frieze:    Athena-Nike  Temple,  159, 
PI.   169,  Text  Ills.  37f.;   Cocks 
and  hens,  from  Xanthos,  52,  PI. 
52b;     Gyolbashi,   reliefs   from, 
168,  PL  177;    "Harpy"  tomb 
from  Xanthos,  53,  PI.  53;  Kni- 
dos,  treasury  of  in  Delphi,  45, 
PI.    44;     Maussolleion,     large 
Amazon,     2340°.,    Pis.     228ff.; 
Minerva,  Temple  of,   390,    PI. 
348;   Parthenon,  see  s.  v.  Par- 
thenon;   Phigaleia,  Temple  of 
Apollo  at   Bassai,    iSiff.,    Pis. 
I72f.;     Siphnos    (?)    treasury, 
Delphi,  43,  PI.  43b 
Funeral  vases,  398,  PI.  377,  Text  111. 
43 

Gable  end  of  tomb  from  Xanthos, 
52f.,  PL  523 

Galateia,  262 

Gallsecus,  Junius  Brutus,  212 

Ganymedes  and  the  eagle,  after  Leo- 
chares,  24 if.,  PL  233 

Garment  on  Akropolis  figures, 
conscious  contrast  between 
lower  and  upper,  113 


Gate  of  lionesses,  2,  PL  2 

Gaul :  Dying,  Capitoline,  2786%  Pis. 

257f.;   Dying,  Naples,  284^,  PL 

2&4a;    "  Warrior  from  Delos," 

3i6f.,   PL   287;    and  his  wife, 

28of.,  PL  259 

Gauls  conquered  by  Attalos  I,  277 
Ge,  287 
Gem-cutters,   influence   on    Roman 

reliefs,  373 
Genre  figures,  77 
Germanicus,    on    Ara    Pacis,   373; 

portrait,  PL  427 

Ghiberti,  bronze  gates  by,  382,  Note 
Giant,  dead,  Naples,  284^.,  PI.  263 
Giant  and  Alhena,  42,  PL  42 
Giants  on  Pergamon  altar  frieze,  288 
Gigantomachia,  46 
Girl  racer,  79,  PL  73 
Girl,  stele  in  Berlin,  PL  354a 
Girls    decorating   a   herm,    Roman, 

1 60,  Note,  Text  111.  32 
Gjolbashi,  see  Gyolbashi 
"Gladiator,"  dying,  278f.,  PL  257^ 
God,  or  Hero,  statue  of,  75,  PL  75 
Goddess,  Capitoline,  288f.,  PL  2*j<)a. 
Gold  cups  from  Vaphio,  2,  PL  8 
Gold  ornaments  from  Mykenai,  Pis. 

8f. 
Goose,  with  boy,  after  Boethos  (?), 

272f.,  PL  254 
Graces,  the  three,  207^,  PL  2093; 

Head  of  one,  PL  473!:) 
Graeco-Roman    period,    345fT.,   Pis. 

3 1  off- 
Grave  monument  in  Gyolbashi,  re- 
liefs from  frieze,  i68f.,  PL  177 
Grave  reliefs,  392fT.,  Pis.  349ff. 
Greece  conquered,  362 
Gyolbashi,   reliefs  from  monument, 
1 68,  PL  177 

Hades,  cap  of,  115 
Hadrian,  303,  305;    PL  ^zgb 
Hagias,   after   Lysippos,    128,    207, 

243f.,  PL  234 
Hair,  arrangement  of  as  means  uf 

dating  statues,  22 


INDEX. 


liii 


Hair,  wiry' treatment  of,  63 
Hand  resting  on  hip,  83 
Harmodios,  61,  63 
Harmodios  and  Aristogeiton,   63!?., 

PI.  58 
"  Harpy  "  tomb  from  Xanthos,  frieze 

from,  53,  PI.  53 
Head  following  direction  of  weight 

of  the  body,  105 
Heads,  4O2ff.,  Pis.  439ff. 
Heads  of  children,  191 
Hegeso,  grave  relief  from,  395,  PI. 

359 

Helen,  with  Paris  and  group,  relief, 
341,  PI.  312 

Hellenistic  Period,  ayoff.,  Pis.  2S4ff.; 
Heads,  4i2ff.,  Pis.  477^ 

Hera,  "  Demeter  "  (Ceres),  Vatican, 
I I7f.,  183,  PI.  104;  Argoshead, 
PI.  463;  "  Barberini  Juno," 
Il8f.,  202,  PI.  105;  "Bor- 
ghese  Juno,"  irSf.,  Plate  106; 
Copenhagen  head,  PI.  462; 
Farnese  head,  407,  PI.  461 ;  Lu- 
dovisi  head,  PI.  474;  in  Vienna, 
Text  111.  26 

"  Hera"  from  Samos,  19,  Plate  22 

Herakles  (?)  on  sculptured  drum 
from  Ephesos,  220 

Herakles,  Assos  relief,  36ff.,  PI.  39; 
in  Boston,  votive  relief,  I79f., 
PI.  183;  Labors  ofg$f.;  Bronze 
statuette  in  the  Louvre,  Text 
111.  36;  Farnese,  246f.,  PL  236; 
Atlas  metope,  Olympia,  94ff., 
PL  90;  Augeian  stables  metope, 
Olympia,  94ff.,  PL  91;  Kretan 
bull  metope,  Olympia,  94ff., 
PL  92a;  Stymphalian  birds 
metope,  Olympia,  95tf.,  Text 
111.  18;  of  Lysippos,  Epitrape- 
sios,  262;  and  the  Hesperidai, 
34of.,  PL  311;  and  the  Hydra, 
38,  Plate 4oa;  and  the  Kekropes, 
47,  PL  47b;  and  the  Triton,  38, 
PL  4ob 

Herculaneum,  "  dancers  "  from,  84f., 
183,  PL  76 


Herm,  definition  of,  406,  Note 
Hermes:  of  Alkamenes,  I26f.,  PL 
112;  of  Andros,  19 if.,  409, 
PL  191,  465;  Belvedere,  Vati- 
can, 19 if.,  PL  192;  in  Boston, 
torso,  135,  267,  PL  124;  bring- 
ing Dionysos  to  the  Nymphs, 
191;  Text  111.  31;  with  Euri- 
dike  and  Orpheus,  relief,  1 73f., 
PL  179;  Farnese,  192,  PL  193; 
fastening  sandal,  on  coin,  25 1 ; 
fastening  sandal,  "Jason," 
Louvre,  2491!.,  PL  238b;  fasten- 
ing sandal,  Munich,  249ff.,  PL 
238a;  after  Lysippos,  reposing, 
248,  PL  237;  Moschophoros, 
I4f.,  PL  19;  and  the  Nymphs, 
I75f.,  PL  1 80;  by  Praxiteles, 
I9of.,  408,  PL  190,  466 
Hermione,  by  Kalamis,  124 
Hero  or  god,  colossal,  Munich,  75f., 

PL  71 
Hesperidai  with  Herakles,  34Of.,  PL 

3" 

"Hestia,"  Torlonia,  Rome,  8if.,  PL 

75 

Hippokampoi,  257 
Historia,  339 

Homer,  apotheosis  of,  338,  PL  310 
Homer,  Naples,  PL  392 
Hope  Athena,  H4f.,  PL  lO2b 
Horror  vacui,  237 
Horseman,  grave  relief,  Albani,  396, 

PL  366 

Horseman,  in  relief,  59 
Horseman,    in    Vatican,    fragment, 

i78f.,  PL  182 
Horseman   with   whip,  grave    relief 

from  Thespiai,  396,  PL  364 
Horses,  on  frieze  at  Delphi,  45 

Human  body,  treatment  of  in  archaic 

art,  gff. 

Humann,  Karl,  276 
Hydra,  Herakles  and  the,  38,  PL  4Oa 
Hylas  ( ?),  230,  PL  226 
Hypnos  head,  409,  PL  467 


liv 


INDEX. 


"  Idolino,"  L',  I34f.,  139,  PI.  123 

Idols,  three  nude,  2,  PI.  6 

Iktinos,  161 

Ildefonso  group,  the,  3526".,  PI.  324 

Ilias,  339 

Ilioneus,  23 if.,  PI.  227 

Imitative  sculpture,  period  of,  345ff., 

Pis.  3i6ff. 

Individual,  the,  in  Greek  art,  i8if. 
Ino-Leukathea  relief,  397,  PI.  3670 
Iris,  on  Parthenon  pediment,  167,  PI. 

I3« 

Isis-Tyche,  2O3f.,  PI.  206 
Isokephalism,  36,  237 

"Jason,"  Hermes,  Louvre,  249ff., 
PI.  2380 

John  Harvard,  statue  of,  by  French, 
270 

Juno,  see  Hera 

Kalamis,  67,  83,  124 

Kanachos,  statuette  after,  nff.,  PL 
i7a 

"  Kanephoroi,"  discussion  of  name, 
155,  Note 

"Karyatid,"  in  Copenhagen,  347f., 
PI.  317;  from  the  Erechtheion, 
I55ff.,  PI.  166;  Roman,  Vati- 
can, 157,  PI.  167 

"  Karyatides,"  discussion   of  name, 

J55 
Kastor  and   Polydeukes,  14 iff.,   PI. 

129,  Note 

Kekropes,  47,  PI.  470 
Kephalos,  carried  off  by  Aurora,  1 24 
Kephisodotos,  Eirene   and   Ploutos 

after,  i82ff.,  187,  410,  PI.   184, 

473* 

Kimon,  63 

Kitylos  and  Dermys,  6,  65,  PI.  iia 
Kladeos,  Zeus  Temple,  Olympia, 

9off.,  PI.  8sa 
Klytaimnestra,  56ff. 
Kneeling  position,  49 
Knees,  formation  of,  in  archaic 

sculpture,  7 
Knidian  Aphrodite,  I96ff.,  Pis.  198 

and 


Knidian  Demeter,  263^,  PI.  247 
Knidos,   Delphi,  reliefs  from   frieze 

of  treasury  of,  45,  PI.  44 
Knights  of  St.  John,  232 
Knossos,  throne  in  palace,  2,  PI.  2 
Kombos,  I4f. 
Komoidia,  339 
Kora,  171 

Korai,  discussion  of  name,  155,  Note 
Koroneia,  115 
Kresilas,  120,  133 
Kritios,  66 

Korallion,  grave  relief,  397,  PI.  372 
Kyzikos,  fragment  of  draped  woman 

from,  268,  PI.  252 

Lancelotti  discus  thrower,  69ff.,  PI. 

63;  Copy  of  head  in  Berlin,  70; 

Cast  of  head  in  Paris,  70 
Laokoon,  29iff.,  306,  414,  Pis.  270, 

484 

Laokoon,  tragedy  by  Sophokles,  292 
"  L'Arrotino,"  28if.,  PL  260 
Lemnian  Athena,  cast,  IO3<T.,  PL  95; 

head  in  Bologna,  PL  458 
Lenau,  396 
Lenormant  statuette  of  the  Parthe- 

nos,  io6ff.,  PL  98 
Leochares,  232,  Ganymedes  and  the 

eagle  after,  24 if.,  PL  233 
Leto,  statuette  of,  123 
Leto,   Apollo,    Artemis,  and    Nike, 

336ff.,  PL  309 

"  L'Idolino,"  I34f.,  139,  PL  123 
Ligourio,  statuette  from,  I2f.,  PL  I7b 
Limitations  in  sculpture,  242 
Livia,  on  Ara  Pacis,  373 
Livia  "  Pudicitia,"  PL  435 
Ludovisi  Ares,  21  iff.,  PL  213 
Luna,  see  Selene 
Lykosoura,  274 
Lysikrates  monument,  Athens,  269, 

PL  253 

Lysimachos,  277 
Lysippos,    130,  207,  251,  262,  301; 

Mission  of,  252;  Compared  with 

Skopas,  213;    and  his  school, 

242;    Apoxyomenos,  244^  PL 


INDEX. 


lv 


Lysippos —  Continued. 

235;  Hagias,  243^,  PL  234; 
Herakles  Farnese,  246f.,  PL 
236;  Hermes  reposing,  248f., 
PL  237 

Madrid  copy  of  the  Parthenos,  io6fL, 

PL  96 
Maiden   from   Herculaneum,   2O6f., 

PL  2o8a 
Maiden,  "Karyatid,"  Roman,    157, 

PL  167 
Maiden    from    the    Porch    of     the 

Maidens,    Erechtheion,    I55ff., 

PL  1 66 

Maidens  of  the  Erechtheion,  348 
Mainad,  176,  222 
Man   tying   his   fillet,   see    Diadou- 

menos 
Mantineia  base,   slabs  from,  2o8ff., 

282,  Pis.  2 1  off. 
Mantle,  heavy,  introduced  with 

changing  fashion,  i  I4f. 
"  Marble   Faun,"   Capitoline,    I94f., 

405,  PL  195 
Marcus  Aurelius,  reliefs  in  Palazzo 

del  Conservatori,  388,  PL  344; 

Portrait,  PL  421  b;    equestrian, 

PL  428 

Mars,  see  Ares 
Marcellus  brings  Greek  art  to  Rome, 

36i 
Marsyas,  hanging,  and  slave,  282,  PL 

261;   on  Mantineia  base,  209; 

probably  after  Myron,  70,  312, 

PL  653;    Recoiling  before 

Athena,  vase  painting,  70; 

Statue  in  the  Forum,  381 ;  Stat- 
uette in  London,  70,  PL  65b 
Mask  of  Warrior,  from  Mykenai,  2, 

PL  4 
Matron,  from   Herculaneum,  2o6f., 

356,  PL  2o8b 
Maussolleion   sculpture,  zy&.,  Pis. 

228ff. 

Maussollos,  232,  PL  4<D4b 

Medea,  370 

Medeia  and  the  daughters  of  Pelias, 

relief,  I76f.,  PL  181 
Medici  Athena,  inff.,  PL  101 


Medicine  Man  by  Dallin,  270 
Medusa,  33;   Slain  by  Perseus,  47, 
PL  47a;   Heads  of,  416!.,  Pis. 

~  -£f 


Megara,  treasury  of  in  Olympia,  ped- 
imental  relief  from,  46,  286,  PL 
46 

Meleager,  2l4ff.;  Berlin,  PL  214; 
Harvard,  PL  215;  Vatican,  PL 
216 

Melpomene,  329^,  PL  299 

Menander  (?),  Boston,  401,  PL  4O3b 

Menander,  Vatican,  PL  405 

Menelaos,  PL  39 ib 

Menelaos,  group  by,  352,  PL  322 

Menelaos  and  Patroklos,  305^,  PI. 
277 

Mercure  aptere,  I34f.,  PL  I22a 

Mercury,  see  Hermes 

Metopes:  of  the  Parthenon,  I53ff.» 
Pis.  i6off.;  from  Selinus,  47ff., 
Pis.  47ff.,  Text  Ills.  6ff.;  from 
treasury  of  Sikyon,  43,  PL  43a; 
from  the  Zeus  Temple,  Olym- 
pia, 94ff.,  Pis.  giff.,  Text  111.  18 

Michelangelo's  treatment  of  wrist- 
action,  351,  Note 

Mikkiades,  25 

Miltiades,  PL  3913 

Minerva,  bronze,  commonly  called 
Etruscan,  371,  358,  PL  330 

Minerva,  see  also  Athena 

"  Minerve  au  Collier,"  lo6ff.,  PL  990 

Mitre,  Homeric,  44 

Mneme  (Memory),  339 

Mnemosyne,  339 

Moira  (Fate),  330 

Monument,  Nereid,  see  Nereid 

Monument  of  Lysikrates,  Athens, 
269,  PL  253 

Moschophoros,  I4f.,  PL  19 

"  Mourning  "  Athena,  97ff.,  PL  93 

Mourning  women,  Berlin,  397,  PL 

376 
Mourning  woman  sarcophagus,  398, 

Pis.  385f. 

Mouths  in  archaic  art,  loff. 
Muse,  Melpomene,  329^,  PL  299 
Muse,  Polyhymnia,  Berlin,  330,  PL 

3°o 


Ivi 


INDEX. 


Muses,  339 

Muses  from  Herculaneum,  2o6f.,  PI. 

208 
Mykenai,   gold   ornaments  from,  2, 

Pis.  8f. 
Myron  :    Discus-thrower  statues  by, 

68ff.,  Pis.  6iff.;   Marsyas,  prob- 

ably after,    70,   312,   PL    653; 

Heads  in  style  of,  PL  451 
Mythos,  339 


"  Narkissos,"  ipaff.,  PL  194 

Neptune,  see  Poseidon 

Nereid  monument,  from  Xanthos, 
165,  PL  1  74,  Text  111.  39;  Three 
Nereids  from,  i65ff.;  Pis.  I75f. 

Nereids,  two,  mounted,  from  Epi- 
dauros,  25  7f.,  PL  244 

Nesiotes,  66 

Nikandre  of  Naxos,  1  6 

Nike  with  Apollo,  Artemis,  and 
Leto,  3366°.,  PL  309;  of  Brescia, 
322,  331,414,  Pis.  301,  488b; 
Bronze,  archaic,  28,  PL  33;  On 
column  of  Trajan,  322;  "Nike" 
of  Delos,  250°.,  PL  32;  Fasten- 
ing her  sandal,  balustrade, 
Athena-Nike  Temple,  159,  251, 
PL  170;'  Two  figures  with  a 
bull,  balustrade,  I59f.,  PL  171; 
Two  figures  with  a  bull,  Roman, 
161,  Text  111.  33;  Two  figures 
from  Epidauros,  253,  PL  240; 
Of  Paionios,  1246*".,  PL  no; 
restoration,  PL  ni;  With  in- 
cense, 274,  Note;  Of  the  Par- 
thenon East  Pediment,  152,  160, 
167,  266,  334,  PL  139;  On  Per- 
gamon  altar  frieze,  287,  PL 
266a;  Of  Samothrace,  33  if., 
253,  Note,  Pis.  302f. 

"  Nike-  Apteros  "  Temple,  I58f.,  PL 
i68ff. 

Nikeratos,  317 

Nile,  the,  307^,  PL  278 

Nile,  periods  of  inundation,  307 

Niobe  group,  224ff.;  authorship  dis- 
cussed, 226;  Niobe  and  her 


youngest  daughter,  224ff.,  PL 
220;  Niobid  Chiaramonti, 
224ff.,  PL  221;  Niobid,  dead, 
Munich,  2246%  PL  223;  Niobid 
in  Uffizi,  resembling  the  Chiara- 
monti, 224ff.,  PL  222;  Niobides 
compared  with  Menelaos  and 
Patroklos,  305;  Niobides  flee- 
ing, 225ff.,  281,  PL  224;  Nio- 
bides, son  and  daughter,  frag- 
ment of  group,  225(7.,  Text  111. 
41;  Tutor  (Paidagogos),  22$tt., 
PL  225b;  Tutor  and  son,  2250°., 
PL  2253 

Nobilior,  M.  Fulvius,  361 

Novus  Annus,  301 

Nymph,  Copenhagen,  266f.,  PL  250 

Nymphs,  with  Hermes,  1751".,  PL  180 

Odysee,  339 

Oikoumene  (inhabitants  of  the 

world),  338 
Oinomaos,  Zeus  Temple,    Olympia, 

goff.,  PL  843 
Old  man  of  the   sea,   Assos   relief, 

36ff.,  PL  39 

Old  woman,  Temple  of  Zeus,  Olym- 
pia, goff.,  PL  88 
Olympia,  Temple  of  Zeus  in,  pedi- 

mental    figures,   82,    goff.,    Pis. 

84ff. ;    suggested     arrangement 

of  East  Pediment,  397,  Note 
Olympia,  treasury  of  Megara,  pedi- 

mental  relief,  46,  PL  46 
Omphalos,  339;  Apollo  with  the,  70, 

PL  66 

Opisthosphendone,  119 
Orator,  Etruscan  bronze,  358,  367, 

PL  327 

Orestes,  in  death  of  Aigistheus,  56 
"Orestes   and   Elektra,"    352ff.,  PL 

322 
"Orestes  and    Pylades,"  352ff.,  PL 

323 
Orient,    borrowing    of    minor    arts 

from,  6 
Ornaments  from  Mykenai,  gold,  2, 

Pis.  8f. 


INDEX. 


Ivii 


Orophernes,  289 

Orpheus,  Eurydike,  and  Hermes,  re- 
lief, I73f.,  178,  220,  PI.  179 

Painted  metopes  from  Thermon,  3, 

PL  7 
Paionios,  94;  Nike  of,  1246°.,  253,  PI. 

liof. 
Pallas    Athena,   archaistic,   Naples, 

347,  PI.  316 
Panormos  harbor,  30 
Papyros,  Oxyrrhynchos,  date  of,  128 
Paris,  Eros,  Aphrodite,  Helen, 

Peitho,  34 if.,  PI.  312 
Parthenon,  the,  1480°.,  PI.  135  : 

Frieze,  complete,  in  strips  in  a 

pocket  at  back  of  book;   Frieze, 

east,    153,   Pis.    I57ff.;    Frieze, 

west,  complete,  I52f.,  Pis.  I42ff.; 

Frieze,  youths    on,  179,    180; 

Metopes,  south  side,    153,  Pis. 

i6off.;     Pediment     sculptures, 

1 5 if.,  Pis.,  I38ff. 
Parthenos,  Athena,  copies  and 

adaptations,  iO5ff.,  Pis.  96ff. 
Pasiteles,  77,  78 

Pasiteles,  school  of,  352ff.,  Pis.  32iff. 
Patroklos  and  Menelaos,  305  f.,  PI. 

277 
Pediment  sculpture,    problems    of, 

33ff- 
Pediments,  see  under  the  names  of 

the  buildings 
Peasant  going  to  market,  relief,  342, 

PI.  313 

Pegasos,  48 

Peiraios,  grave  relief  from,   395,  PI. 

360 
Pelias,  Medeia  and  the  daughters  of, 

i76f.,  PI.  181 
Peitho,  in  Paris  and  Helen   relief, 

34if.,  PI.  312 
"  Penolope,"  8of.,  PI.  74 
Penelope,  head  of,  PI.  453;  geese  of 

272,  Note 

Pergamon  altar,  2856".,  Pis.  265^". 
Pergamon,  copy  of  the    Parthenos, 

io6ff.,  PI.  99a 


Pergamon,    dancing  woman    from, 

336,  PI.  308 
Pergamon,    school    of,   276flf.,    Pis. 

257ff. 

Perikles,  two  portraits,  PI.  406 
Persephone,  170 

Persian,  dead,  Naples,  284^,  PL  2&4b 
Perseus,  47 

Perspective  in  reliefs,  376,  394,  Note 
Petasos,  173 
Phaistos,   stairway  in   palace  of,    I, 

PI.  I 
Pharsalos,  grave  relief  from,  394,  PI. 

358 

Pheidias,  102,  131,  132,  142 
Phigaleia,    frieze    from    temple     of 

Apollo  near,  i6lff.,  Pis.  I72f. 
Philetairos,  277 
Phokion,  PI.  407 
Phradmon,  133 

Phylis,  grave  relief,  394,  PI.  355 
Physis  (Nature),  339 
Pictorial  element  in  relief  sculpture, 

44f. 

Piombino,  Apollo,  (?)  PI.  1 8 
Pistis  (Faith),  339 
Ploutos  with  Eirene,  i82ff.,  187,  PI. 

184 

Plato,  PI.  408 
Poiesis  (Epic  Poetry),  339 
Polydeukes  and  Kastor,   141  ff.,  PI. 

129 

Polydoros,  2916°. 
Polyhymnia,  Berlin,  330,  PI.  300 
Polykleitean  school,  precurssors  of, 

74 

Polykleitos,  132,  135,  304;  Diadou- 
menos  by,  I28f.,  Pis.  U4f.; 
Doryphoros  or  Spear  Bearer, 
I27f.,  PI.  113;  Heads  from 
school  of,  4o6ff.,  Pis.  454ff.; 
"Westmacott  Athlete,"  134^, 

PI.  I22b 

Polyphemos,  262 

Pompey,  PI.  42ga 

Porcia  and  Cato,  Vatican,  PI.  375 

Poros,  15,  38 

Portraits,  4Oof.,  Pis.  387(7. 


Iviii 


INDEX. 


Poseidippos,  PI.  409 

Poseidon,  in  Lateran,  252,  309,  PI. 

239;  of  Melos,  3o8f.,  PI.  279 
Praxitelean  character,  189 
Praxitelean  motive,  133 
Praxiteles,  137,   142,  181,  192,  203, 

205,  221,  259;  and  his  school, 

i84ff.;  "Apollo"    Sauroktonos 

after,  iSsf.,  Pis.  185^,  Text  111. 

27;  Heads  in  style,  of  4o8f.,  Pis. 

464(1.;     Hermes   of,    igof.,   PL 

190;   Knidian  Aphrodite  after, 

I96ff.,  Pis.  198!. 
Priene,   school    of,     289ff.,    draped 

woman  from,  290,  PL  2690 
Principle  of  opposites,  65 
Promachos,  Athena,  bronze  statuette, 

28,  PL  35 

Protonoe,  grave  relief,  397,  PL  373 
"  Pselioumene,  199,  PL  200 
Psyche  of  Capua,  267^,  PL  251 
Ptolemy,  PL  410 
"Pylades"   with   "Orestes,"    3528"., 

PL,  323 

Pythagoras,  67,  263;  "Apollo  with 
the  omphalos,"  probably  after, 
7off.,  PL  66;  "Choiseul-Gouf- 
fier "  Apollo,  probably  after, 
7 iff.,  PL  67;  Boxers,  7off.,  Pis. 
66f. 

Pythios,  232 

Realism  unknown  in  fourth  century, 

260 
Reliefs,  Roman,  in  Palazzo  dei  Con- 

servatori,  384,  PL  340 
Reliefs,  copied  after  statues,  254 
Revelation  of  St.  John,  285 
Rhamnous,  Themis  of,  332$.,  PL,  304 
Rhodes,  school  of,  2910%  Pis.  2706". 
Riding  whip,  397 
Roman  art,  358ff.,  Pis.  325^ 
Running,  archaic  representation  of, 

88,  230 

Sacred   way   at   Branchidai,    seated 

figures  from,  29ff.,  PL  36 
Saint  Gaudens,  Sherman  by,  270 


Saint  Paul's  letters  to  the  Galatians, 

277 

"  Samos,"  Hera  from,  19,  PL  22 
Sappho,  bronze,  PL  393 ;  marble,  PL 

394* 

Sarcophagi,  398,  Pis.  3788". 
Sarcophagus   relief   in   Baumeister, 

3U 

"  Sardanapollos,"  i86f.,  PL  187 
Satyr,  "Barberini  Faun,"  3iof.,  PL 
280;  Bronze  statuette,  Biblio- 
th£que  Nationale,  Paris,  I34f., 
PL  I22c;  Dancing,  Naples, 
31  iff.,  PL  282a;  Dancing, 
Terme,  31  iff.,  PL  282b;  After 
the  hunt,  relief,  343,  PL  314; 
"  Marble  Faun,"  Capitoline, 
I94f.,  312;  PL  195;  Playing 
scabellum,  3i2f.,  PL  383;  Pour- 
ing wine,  I95f.,  PL  197;  Sleep- 
ing, Naples,  31 1,  PL  281 ;  Torso 
(replica  of  PL  195),  1941.,  PL 
196 

Satyros,  232 
Scabellum,  satyr  playing,  3i2f.,  PL 

283 

Sciarra,  archaic  "  Apollo,"  1 6 
Sculpture  copying  paintings,  297, 326 
Selene,  from  Pergamon  alter,  285ff, 
Selinous,  see  Selinus,  PL  268b, 
from  Parthenon  pediment,  152, 
PL  I4ob 
Selinus  metopes,  476".,  286,  Pis.  47<T., 

Text  Ills.  7ff. 
Sentiment,  first  conscious  expression 

of,  393 
Sherman,  statue  by  Saint  Gaudens, 

270 
Shield  of  Athena   Parthenos,    107, 

in,  PL  100 
Sikyon,  metopes  from   treasury   of, 

43,  PL  43a 
Silenos,  with  infant  Dionysos,  three 

replicas,  2586".,  PL  243 
Siphnos  ( ?)  frieze  from  treasury  of, 

43,  PL  43b 

Skopas,  21  iff.,  232,  289,  315;  and 
his  school,  2ioff.,  Pis.  2i3<T; 
Heads  in  style  of,  409,  Pis.  469^ 


INDEX. 


lix 


Slave  sharpening  his  knife,  28lf.,  PI. 

260 

Smile,  archaic,  89 
Smilis,  6 

Snakes  on  Pergamon  alter,  287 
Sokrates,  PI.  41  la;   and  Seneca,  PI. 

41  I'D 

Sophia  (Wisdom),  339 
Sophokles,  228,  268,  PI.  412; 

Tradgedy  of  Laokobn  by,  292 
Spartan,  grave  relief,  396,  397,  PI. 

367* 

Sparta,  sphinx  from,  33,  PI.  38 
Spearbearer,  Doryphoros,  after  Poly- 

kleitos,  I27f.,  PI.  113 
Spearbearer  head,  393,  PI.  352 
Sphinxes,  character  of,  33 
Spinario,  London,  3i3f.,  PI.  284 
Spinario,  Rome,  61,  76,  313,  PI.  72 
Spirit  of  art  denied,  346 
Stairway, palace  of  Phaistos,  i,  PI.  I. 
Standards,  Roman,  378 
Statues  reproduced  in  reliefs,  254 
Stephanos,  119 

Stelai  (single  figures)  392f.,  Pis.  349ff. 
Stele,  correct  use  of  the  word,  392 
Sterope,  Zeus  Temple,  Olympia, 

9off.,  PI.  84b 

Strassbourg,  statue  of,  275 
Stride  of  men  contrasted  with  that 

of  women,  28 

Stroganoff  Apollo,  bronze,  "299 
Stymphalian     birds,    metope    from 

Selinus,  95ff.,  Text  111.  18 
Subiaco,  youth  from,  230,  PI.  226 
Suggested  lines,  54 
Suggestion,  principle  of  negative,  99 
Suovetaurilia,  380,  PI.  337a 
Support,  material,  197,  198 
Syracuse,  fall  of,  361 

Tarentum  despoiled,  361 

Tarsos,  athlete  from,  66 

Tauriskos,  295 

Tegea  heads,  by  Skopas,  409,  PI.  469 

Telekles,  29 

Temple,  of  Aigina,  86ff.,Text  111.  13, 
Pis.  78ff. ;  of  Apollo  near  Phiga- 
leia,  slabs  from  frieze  of,  i6iff., 
Pis.  I72f.;  Athena-Nike,  isSf., 


Pis.  i68f.,  Text  111.  37f.;  the 
Erechtheion,  I53f.,  Pis.  165^, 
Text.  111.  34;  of  Minerva,  part 
of  frieze  of,  390,  PI.  348;  the 
Parthenon,  I48ff.,  Pis.  I35ff., 
and  strips  in  pocket  at  back  of 
book;  the  Theseion,  I44ff.,  Pis. 
I3off.;  of  unusual  design,  161 

Thanatos,  220,  355 

Thasos,  reliefs  from,  54,  394,  PI.  54 

Themis  of  Rhamnous,  3328.,  PI.  304 

Theodores,  29 

Thermon,  painted  metopes  from,  4, 
PI.  7 

Theseus  and  the  bull,  metope  from 
the  Theseion,  95ff.,  PI.  92b; 

"Theseion,"  the,  I44ff.,  PI.  130; 
slabs  from  the  frieze,  PI.  13 iff., 
pedimental  composition  of,  123 

Thespiai,  grave  relief  from,  396,  PI. 

364 

"Thinking"  Athena,  97ff.,  PI. 93 

Thrasymedes,  253,  254;  two  Askle- 
pios  reliefs  after,  254^,  PI  241 

Three  women  in  transparent  gar- 
ments, relief,  99ff.,  PL  94 

Throne,  palace,  Knossos,  2,  PL  2 

"  Thusnelda,"  369,  PL  32ga 

Tiber,  308 

Tiberius  on  Ara  Pacis,  373 

Timotheus,  232,  253,  255 

Titus,  palace  of,  291 

Togatus,  British  Museum,  370,  PL 
329b 

Togatus  sacrificing,  368f.,  PL  328 

Tomb,  gable  end  of,  from  Xanthos, 
52f.,  PL  52a 

Torso  Belvedere,  26iff.,  PL  246 

Torso  of  a  boy,  "  Hermes,"  Boston, 
135,  PL  124 

Torso  of  a  draped  woman,  "  Arte- 
mis," Copenhagen, 334,  PL  305. 

Torso  of  a  draped  woman,  Copen- 
hagen, 32 iff.,  PL  292b 

Torso  of  a  Satyr  (replica  of  PL  195), 
I94f.,  PL  196 

Torso  of  a  Triton,  Vatican,  3i4f.,  PL 

285 

Torso  of  woman  in  Doric  chiton, 
Copenhagen,  85^,  PL  77 


Ix 


INDEX. 


Tragoidia,  339 

Trajan  and  his  suite,  383,  PI.  339 
Tralles,  school  of,  293 
Transitional    Period,    6off.,    heads, 

404ff.,  Pis.  446ff. 
Treasury  of  Megara,  Olympia,  pedi- 

mental  relief,  46,  PI.  46 
Triton,  Herakles  and  the,  38,  PL  4ob 
Triton,  torso  of  a,  Vatican,  314^,  PI. 

285 

Tyche,  of  Antiocheia,  274^,  PI.  256 
Tyche,  Artemis-Tyche,  2C>3f.,  PI.  206 
Typhon,  pedimental  group,  40,  PI. 

4ia 
Tyrannicides,  Bobolini  Gardens, 

65ff.,  Text  111.  14 
Tyrannicides,  Farnese  Athlete,  65ff., 

Text  111.  15 
Tyrannicides,  Naples,  6^fi.,  Pis.  £8f. 

Unknown  man,  terra-cotta,  Boston, 

Pis.  436f. 
Unknown  man  leaning  on  spear,  PI. 

413 

Unknown  man,  portrait,  Roman,  PI. 
4140 

Vaphio,  gold  cups  from,  2,  PI.  8 
Varvakeion  statuette  of  the  Parthe- 

nos,'  io6ff.,  PI.  97 
Veins  in  Greek  sculpture,  263 
Velletri,  120,  PI.  107 
Venus,  see  Aphrodite 
"  Venus  de  Milo,"  discussion  of 

proper  name,  323 
"  Vestals,"  from  Herculaneum, 

2o6f.,  PI.  208 
Victor,  Olympic,  77 
Victor  statue  of  girl  racer,   79,   PI. 

73 

Victory,  see  Nike 
Virgil  (  ?  )  portrait,  401,  PI.  403b 
Votive  relief  of  Herakles,  Boston, 

179!.,  PL  183 

Warrior  Borghese,  3l5f.,  PL  286 
Warrior  from  Delos,  3i6f.,  PL  287 
Warrior,  fragment  of  stele,  PL  356 
Watery  folds  of  garments,  100 
Weber,  head,  408,  PL  460 
Wernicke's  restoration  of  Olympia 
pediments,  91 


"Westmacott  Athlete,"     134^,   PI. 

I22b 

Wolf  of  the  Capitol,  365,  PL  325b 
Woman    (  "  Aphrodite  "  ),     Berlin, 

116,  322,  PL  103 
Woman  in  Boston,  seated,  349f.,  PL 

319 
Woman  in  Boston,  standing,  35of., 

PL  320 
Woman  (torso)  in  Copenhagen 

321  ff.,  PL  292b 
Woman  heavily  draped,  stele,  393, 

PL  354b 
Woman  from  Kyzikos,  268,  333,  PL 

252 
Woman  running,  Copenhagen,  I22f., 

PL  109 
Women  from  Herculaneum,  in  Doric 

chiton,  bronze,  84^,  PL  76 
Wrestlers,  Florence,  317^  PL  288 
Wrestlers,  Naples,  3i8f.,  PL  289 
Wrist-action,  351 

Xanthos  in  Lycia,  gable  end  of  a 
tomb  from,  52f.  PL  52a;  Frieze 
of  cocks  and  hens  from,  52,  PL 
52b;  Frieze  of  "Harpy  tomb" 
from,  53,  PL  53;  Nereid  monu- 
ment from,  see  Nereid 

Youth  from  Antikythera,  3i9f.,  Pis. 
290,  486 

Youth,  fragment  of  stele  from 
Athens,  393,  PL  353 

Youth  with  an  old  man,  grave  re- 
lief, 396,  PL  363 

Youth  on  Parthenon  frieze,  foot 
raised,  252 

Youth  with  servant  and  cat,  grave 
relief,  395,  PL  362 

Youth  by  Stephanos,  352ff.,  PL  321 

Youth  from  Subiaco,  23of.,  PL  226 

Youths  on  Parthenon  frieze,  1 79f. 

Zethos,  in  group,  295,  PL  271 

Zeus,  339;  Otricoli,  PL  487;  or 

Asklepios,  Dresden,  I4of.,  PL 
128;  on  Pergamon  altar  frieze, 
287,  PL  266a;  of  Pheidias  287, 
309;  temple  of  Olympia,  goff., 
Pis.  840".;  or  hero,  Munich,  -j^i., 
PL  71 ;  Talleyrand,  418,  PL  499 


ERRATA. 

Read  "Archermos "  for  "Achermos"  pp.  6,  25 
Read  "Aischines  "  for  "Aischenes  "  PI.  395 


Ix 


INDEX. 


Tragoidia,  339 

Trajan  and  his  suite,  383,  PI.  339 
Tralles,  school  of,  293 
Transitional    Period,    6off.,    heads, 

404ff.,  Pis.  446ff. 
Treasury  of  Megara,  Olympia,  pedi- 

mental  relief,  46,  PI.  46 
Triton,  Herakles  and  the,  38,  PL  4ob 
Triton,  torso  of  a,  Vatican,  314!.,  PI. 

285 

Tyche,  of  Antiocheia,  274^,  PI.  256 
Tyche.  Artemis-Tvche.  20  if..  PI.  -znfi 


"Westmacott  Athlete,"     134^,    PI. 

I22b 

Wolf  of  the  Capitol,  365,  PI.  325b 
Woman    (  "  Aphrodite  "  ),     Berlin, 

1 1 6,  322,  PI.  103 
Woman  in  Boston,  seated,  349f.,  PI. 

319 
Woman  in  Boston,  standing,  35of., 

PI.  320 
Woman  (torso)  in  Copenhagen 

321  ff.,  PI.  292b 


Tyr 
Tyr 
Tyr 
Unl 
Unl 
Unknown  man,  portrait,  Roman,  PI. 


Vaphio,  gold  cups  from,  2,  PI.  8 
Varvakeion  statuette  of  the  Parthe- 

nos;  io6ff.,  PI.  97 
Veins  in  Greek  sculpture,  263 
Velletri,  120,  PI.  107 
Venus,  see  Aphrodite 
"  Venus  de  Milo,"  discussion  of 

proper  name,  323 
"  Vestals,"  from  Herculaneum, 

2o6f.,  PI.  208 
Victor,  Olympic,  77 
Victor  statue  of  girl  racer,  79,  PI. 

73 

Victory,  see  Nike 
Virgil  (  ?  )  portrait,  401,  PI.  4O3b 
Votive  relief  of  Herakles,  Boston, 

i79f.,  PI.  183 

Warrior  Borghese,  315^,  PI.  286 
Warrior  from  Delos,  3i6f.,  PI.  287 
Warrior,  fragment  of  stele,  PI.  356 
Watery  folds  of  garments,  IOO 
Weber,  head,  408,  PI.  460 
Wernicke's  restoration  of  Olympia 
pediments,  91 


tomb  from,  52f.  PI.  52a;  Frieze 
of  cocks  and  hens  from,  52,  PI. 
52b;  Frieze  of  "Harpy  tomb" 
from,  53,  PI.  53;  Nereid  monu- 
ment from,  see  Nereid 

Youth  from  Antikythera,  3i9f.,  Pis. 
290,  486 

Youth,  fragment  of  stele  from 
Athens,  393,  PI.  353 

Youth  with  an  old  man,  grave  re- 
lief, 396,  PI.  363 

Youth   on    Parthenon    frieze,    foot 
raised,  252 

Youth  with  servant  and  cat,  grave 
relief,  395,  PI.  362 

Youth  by  Stephanos,  352ff.,  PI.  321 

Youth  from  Subiaco,  23of.,  PI.  226 

Youths  on  Parthenon  frieze,  1 79f. 

Zethos,  in  group,  295,  PI.  271 

Zeus,  339;  Otricoli,  PI.  487;  or 

Asklepios,  Dresden,  I4of.,  PI. 
128;  on  Pergamon  altar  frieze, 
287,  PI.  266a;  of  Pheidias  287, 
309;  temple  of  Olympia,  9off., 
Pis.  840".;  or  hero,  Munich,  75f., 
PI.  71 ;  Talleyrand,  418,  PI.  499 


A     000  651  274     3 


